Thread: Purgatory: UK Election 2015 Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001291
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I posted a poll in the Circus about how people are intending to vote in the UK's General Election in May.
The Circus isn't really the place to discuss the Election, and I'm sort of hoping that anything and everything that is discussion about the Election in general can go here. (although discussing the poll over there is fine), and I was hoping that there might be shipmates with interesting knowledge, opinions and perspectives about it.
Who are you planning to vote for? Are you reluctant to use your vote for one of the three centre-right neo-liberal parties? Are you voting differently from your usual? How's the campaign going? Who's emerging as a favourite for you, and who's being a total numpty? Have you found any good articles about it, or is the coverage something you're trying to hide from? Does the whole thing really matter anyway?
Me? I'm planning to vote for the Green Party this time, always having voted Lib Dem in the past (although I did get to vote in the first Scottish election, and I voted SNP with my party vote then). I live in a seat which has a Labour MP, but I won't be voting 'tactically' this election (this Guardian article has some reasons why, put much better than I could) . I joined the Green Party early in January, the first time I've been a member of a political Party, and I'd describe myself as a Watermelon .
Had I been living in Scotland and for the Referendum (I'm Scottish, but I've lived down in London for years), I would have voted 'Yes' (originally I had myself down as a 'No', but as I followed the campaign, I changed my mind). I think following that rekindled my political interest and made me less apathetic, even though I couldn't vote.
I'm particularly interested in the
Common Weal project, which is kind of relevant here because it looks likely that some sort of Coalition will result from May's vote, and their Red Lines Campaign , launched today, seeks to get smaller Parties to sign up to this set of "Red Line" issues, and to get people to vote for those that do. Although it's a Scottish project, it could be useful for the whole UK.
[ 02. November 2015, 08:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Here are some random things I think might happen.
1. The campaigns from the 3 main parties will be uninspiring, and highly personalised. They will all concentrate on the economy and austerity vs more spending, with no real big ideas.
2. The Lib Dems will get wiped out. If people feel the economy is still in the toilet, people will blame them for propping up the Conservatives in government. If people feel the economy is getting better, the Conservatives will get the credit. Lots of hate for the lib dems is still around over tuition fees etc.
3. SNP will do well in Scotland, which will continue to annoy people in England over the whole "English votes for English laws" type business. They might beat up the Labour party in Scotland badly enough to stop Labour winning a majority.
4. UKIP will win some more seats, but I'm not sure what the impact of that will be.
5. Smaller parties will have better, more interesting ideas than the main three, but I don't know how many seats they will be able to mount serious challenges for under first past the post.
I have always voted, and have only ever spoiled my paper once (for the police and crime commissioner elections, where there wasn't an option to say you didn't want one), but I'm definitely pretty uninspired by the main parties in this election (as per point 1 above).
I'll have to see who else is available....
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
While the Lib Dems might lose many of the gains they've made over the last 15-20 years, I suspect they'll still have around 20 seats or so. Yes, they're unpopular, but they often have a very effective ground operation in those areas where they're dug in (see, for example, with the Eastleigh by-election).
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
More than anything else, UKIP will gain from the "I can't be bothered to vote" factor, especially as that will affect the coalition partners and Labour more than anyone else. I'm sure that will win them seats, some in unexpected places, so the quality of UKIP MPs, which was always going to be variable, will be exceptionally so.
If you don't want UKIP, get out and vote!
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
I'm not so sure. I think some seats may change hands as a result of former Labour or Conservative voters switching to UKIP, or indeed disgruntled people going out and voting UKIP, but I'm not sure if that's enough for UKIP to win seats.
If you look at the Rochester and Strood by-election, in which the UKIP candidate was well-known (having been the MP), UKIP didn't win by the margin they expected and the Conservatives believe they are in with a chance of winning back the seat at the General Election. At the General Election, UKIP candidates will be largely unknown and voters will be thinking about a range of issues when they go to the polls. The exception might be whatever seat Farage decides to stand in, I suppose.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK? Cameron is aggressively demanding improvement but I don't think he has anything more than threats and bluster.
If I ruled the world (or was education secretary) then I would ensure that the public sector can emulate the best features of fee-paying schools by merging the resources of the latter into the schools system. Top notch facilities and the better state schools could show Eton, Harrow etc how to improve their GCSE scores.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
When they changed the rules about having a fixed term of office rather than calling it at the sitting Prime Minister's whim my first thought was that we would have months of ridiculous campaigning rather than the four weeks we used to get. I don't think I have been proven wrong. Why can't they just wait until nearer the time? And who will pay the bill?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
At the moment I'm seriously thinking of spoiling my ballot paper. None of the available parties has earned my vote and unfortunately the only way of saying "None of the above" is either to spoil the paper or not to vote at all. I'm also looking around to see if there are any campaigns I can attach myself to in order to argue for the inclusion of "none of the above" in future elections.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
When they changed the rules about having a fixed term of office rather than calling it at the sitting Prime Minister's whim my first thought was that we would have months of ridiculous campaigning rather than the four weeks we used to get. I don't think I have been proven wrong. Why can't they just wait until nearer the time? And who will pay the bill?
We're already paying it. The civil service is under notice of the election and things are a bit 'boat sick'. I suppose we'll have a "Reverse Robin Hood" Budget on March 18th, with the House dissolved on March 30th.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The exception might be whatever seat Farage decides to stand in, I suppose.
That would be South Thanet, where the Tories are defending a 7,617 majority which they won from Labour in 2010, having previously been a marginal.
Since it was created in 1983, the seat has been something of a bellwether, which possibly has something to do with why Farage chose it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
(re the South Thanet consituency of the UK Parliament>
Since it was created in 1983, the seat has been something of a bellwether, which possibly has something to do with why Farage chose it.
nb, a Bellwether was originally placed around the neck of a castrated ram leading a flock of sheep.
Well chosen, Sipech.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
At the moment I'm seriously thinking of spoiling my ballot paper. None of the available parties has earned my vote and unfortunately the only way of saying "None of the above" is either to spoil the paper or not to vote at all. I'm also looking around to see if there are any campaigns I can attach myself to in order to argue for the inclusion of "none of the above" in future elections.
Yes, I feel a kind of impotent fury, since I am faced with the prospect of 3 centre-right parties, who have taken neo-liberalism to their bosom. I suppose I could do a protest vote, big deal.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
At the moment I'm seriously thinking of spoiling my ballot paper. None of the available parties has earned my vote and unfortunately the only way of saying "None of the above" is either to spoil the paper or not to vote at all.
I don't know what constituency you are in, so don't know who your options will be. But, are you sure that there will be no-one on the ballot you could vote for? I could see an argument why Labour, Tory and Lib Dem have shown themselves to be unworthy of our vote. And, I would say the likes of UKIP and BNP are political scum, and should never get the chance to show whether they can do anything other than completely cock things up. But, what of the Greens? Or, any local independent?
Why not stand yourself as a "none of the above" independent? Form a party with the name "none of the above" and get someone to stand in every constituency. That will get "none of the above" on the ballot paper.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Hmm - it's £500 (the deposit), and you need 5% of votes cast in order not to lose it. I suppose you'd get your 15 minutes of fame.
Maybe that could also be a twist in this election? A few more Martin Bell, single issue types getting in?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK?
Destroy every f*****g comprehensive school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Hmm - it's £500 (the deposit), and you need 5% of votes cast in order not to lose it. I suppose you'd get your 15 minutes of fame.
Maybe that could also be a twist in this election? A few more Martin Bell, single issue types getting in?
The "single issue" at this election is, as ever, the economy, or more accurately the apparent need for austerity.
It ought to be obvious that the deficit hasn't been reduced by anything like as much as had been hoped and few jobs that provide tax income have been created (two of my now adult children are in work and despite working up to 30 hours a week they pay no income tax).
Thanks to HS2, the "bomb magnets" (the Royal Navy's non-aircraft carriers) low wages and mass unemployment, public spending is still way up above any target George Osborne has set from may 2010 onwards. Treasury projections of economic performance haven't been much better than those which got Tesco into a lot of trouble.
After all that, an anti-austerity campaigner, in the right constituency, might just pull it off.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK?
Destroy every f*****g comprehensive school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.
And replace 80% of then with secondary moderns?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And replace 80% of then with secondary moderns?
Or technical schools? Free schools are a start, but sadly I don't think any mainstream party really has the guts to re-introduce grammars.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And replace 80% of then with secondary moderns?
Or technical schools? Free schools are a start, but sadly I don't think any mainstream party really has the guts to re-introduce grammars.
You'd need to make sure that there were enough grammar places for all the children who achieved the appropriate result in the 11 plus, regardless of gender - I know one woman who only just "failed", which actually means she passed, but, like the provision of toilets in theatres, there were fewer places for girls than boys. There is evidence that girls passed in greater numbers than boys, to be met with fewer places.
You'd also need to be sure that "technical" was really well thought through. My school offered commercial education in shorthand and typing, pre-nursing courses, and domestic science. There was proper science in out of the way, poorly financed* and dangerous labs** for the remainder of girls destined to be teachers. Or possibly bank clerks. "We don't encourage girls to become accountants - we had one take out articles once, but she left to have a baby." "We don't encourage girls to get involved with the local chemicals industry." (Don't know what the excuse was for that.) We had no access to woodwork, metalwork, technical drawing or such like (on offer at boys grammars).
*We weren't able to use platinum electrodes for breaking up water into hydrogen and oxygen, so we learned to lie about experimental results when carbon reacts with the oxygen.
**No fire exits.
[ 02. February 2015, 13:30: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK?
Destroy every f*****g comprehensive school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.
I agree! Bring back grammar schools and secondary modern schools BUT this must happen as well:
Secondary schools, for those who are not academic in the writing-essays style, must never again be seen or treated as lower or dead end education.
In my education world, the academic rigour of the grammar schools, along with the discipline and ethos of said schools, must be emulated in the secondary schools - this means that more vocational subjects must be taught with equal rigour and must lead to parallel qualifications at 16+.
There is no reason whatever why vocational and academic qualifications should not be celebrated and honoured side by side. So what if you won't get an A* in economics, if you come out of further education with the equivalent qualification in being an electrician, plumber, nurse or mechanic then excellent!
That's where the divide should be - style and content of education, not higher achievement in grammar and lower achievement in secondary.
Different types of schools but the same expectation of success.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And replace 80% of then with secondary moderns?
Or technical schools? Free schools are a start, but sadly I don't think any mainstream party really has the guts to re-introduce grammars.
I was lucky enough to go to a (boys) technical school after 11+ but entrance was academically competitive rather than on aptitude. Later on I went to a (boys) grammar school having been to a (mixed) comprehensive in between.
The only disavantage I found at the comp was that it was so big! At the end of my fifth year there were just under 1800 on the school roll with about 150 teachers. The technical school was very good while the grammar I attended at the end was dreadful (name withheld to protect the over-sensitive).
Anyway, the correlation between attainment at 10/11 and future performance is pretty shaky, especially if equal resources are applied to all, which was never the case in the grammar/sec mod/tech era.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I went to a comprehensive school. Which was large (it was actually a merger between a grammar and secondary modern on opposites sides of the same road), but that meant there was resources available to provide a very broad curriculum - there were a small number of specialised subjects at A level where some people sat classes in other local schools (or pupils from other schools came to us). It never did me any harm, it not only challenged me academically but also provided opportunities for all pupils to do technical as well as academic subjects - a bit of wood work, metal work, technical drawing, home economics etc.
My answer to how to provide the best possible education for our children? Properly resourced comprehensive schools. The key part of that is, of course, the properly resourced part - suitable buildings, sufficient qualified teachers and other support staff, good quality and sufficient equipment. Basically, invest some money into the future of the country.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK?
Destroy every f*****g comprehensive school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.
Well, I disagree. I'd close every private and grammar and academy and free school. Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted, but many of them (with a bit of judicious busing) can be reopened with a fully comprehensive curriculum the day after.
There is nothing wrong with a comprehensive education - certainly nothing that you've managed to identify. What would you replace it with? Zero marks if you consign the nation's children to a grammar/secondary modern system.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I went to a comprehensive school. Which was large (it was actually a merger between a grammar and secondary modern on opposites sides of the same road), but that meant there was resources available to provide a very broad curriculum -
The scale of large schools does indeed enable them to offer a lot of minority interest options. A smaller school couldn't economically offer a class that one or two children wanted to take, but perhaps the large school can offer the class for twenty. The same argument can be made for big fancy expensive bits of equipment. A large school might be able to justify having one, whereas a small school couldn't.
Some children thrive in large schools, and some don't. This doesn't mean that one or the other is "better" - it means that children are not all identical. I am becoming increasingly convinced that one-size-fits-all isn't necessarily the best model. I find a voucher system quite interesting, but it seems to be quite vulnerable to screwing over children from poor families, and I'm not quite sure how you rectify that.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I find a voucher system quite interesting, but it seems to be quite vulnerable to screwing over children from poor families, and I'm not quite sure how you rectify that.
You could make the education voucher inversely proportional to the "cultural capital" mentioned in the "Class" thread hereabouts. Children of disabled single parents with few qualifications who have never worked, and live in a tatty bedsit would then be as able to send their sons and daughter to the same schools as do Lord and Lady Muck in their country pile. The poorer child might still go to St Tesco's Comp, but it would provide a welcome financial boost.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Some children thrive in large schools, and some don't. This doesn't mean that one or the other is "better" - it means that children are not all identical. I am becoming increasingly convinced that one-size-fits-all isn't necessarily the best model.
Of course, children are different and need differences in their learning environment. I'm also convinced that those differences spread across subjects in individual students. A student may excell at maths and science with limited interaction with other students, yet for history need to be in a larger group to do well, can confidently work on her own in metal working but need more hands on help in English literature. And, what works reasonably well at age 12 may be completely inappropriate at 15. Even for a single student, then, I don't think we can possibly have an optimal system and need to make some compromises.
I think large schools are actually better placed to provide a not-too-bad fit for the vast majority of students. Large schools have options for providing different classes for pupils with different abilities - indeed, given that once you pass about 30 pupils per intake year you need to divide them into different classes to be manageable then it only makes sense to put people with similar maths ability together for maths, similar history ability together for history etc. That can include smaller classes for those who struggle in large classes (if the school is adequately resourced - which is the biggest problems schools face), even individual tuition if needed (and that can extend to all parts of the ability range - a friend at school received individual tuition on advanced maths to sit the special paper at A level because he needed more than just very good A levels for the place he wanted at Cambridge).
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
My 14 year old is just choosing his options and I was surprised at how broad the choice was at his school (a local academy). He is a geeky scientific type and, timetable allowing, will be able to study a level 2 Btec in Engineering (equivalent to GCSE) alongside his triple science, a combination that really impressed his scientist father. The available syllabus ranges from GCSE Ancient History to a Btec in Health and Social Care, extra curricular options include a qualification in music technology and GCSE Astronomy (he started the modules for the latter earlier this year). I doubt a grammar school would have offered such a wide range of combinations for study.
I find a lot of government announcements on education very annoying. The Secretary of State announced a goal for times tables in year 6 a couple of days ago which already exists for year 4 in the curriculum. She appeared to say that schools would need to attain the goal 100% or be penalised, without acknowledging that some pupils, such as those with special educational needs, will never be able to meet the goals. Such goals are just unrealistic and would seem to just be an opportunity to enforce management change.
[ 02. February 2015, 17:52: Message edited by: Heavenly Anarchist ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I hate to say anything good about our local academy chain - the chaining and empire building is the reason for my attitude, and what it has done to the primary where I taught* - but its core school, originally supposedly comprehensive, in a town with several grammars, then a city technology college, seems to have a good arrangement by having four houses with different emphases for study. (And all named after men, another gripe.**) This does seem to offer good possibilities for offering education suitable to each child's aptitude. Proper comprehensive, in as far as it can be with four grammars in the same town and another one town away.
*(And it sold part of its estate to an African prosperity gospel mega-church about which I have doubts. That was public land once.)
** Brunel, Chaucer, Darwin, Da Vinci - linked to the theme of each house. I admit that a woman engineer might be hard to find, but Da vinci isn't even British.
[ 02. February 2015, 18:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I hate to say anything good about our local academy chain - the chaining and empire building is the reason for my attitude.
I'm with you here. There is no secondary school in our village at present, my son gets the bus to a nearby village. But the academy school there has maintained a very traditional ethos and still seems like a comp to me. But the new school being built in our village will be owned by an academy in the city and I really dislike them, the headmaster sounds like a businessman, they are not straight talkers and people I've spoken to say they are only interested in results not individuals. We will be sending our youngest to the same school as his brother rather than the new one only 5 minutes walk away.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Who's emerging as a favourite for you, and who's being a total numpty?
For me it's choosing the "least worst" option. I won't vote for any party that wants to legalize all drugs or handguns, abolish the monarchy, or deport foreigners (unless they're serious criminals who deserve to be extradited). I feel deeply reluctant to vote for any party that wants to rush through HS2, fracking, more benefit cuts, or promise wonderful things and a dream lifestyle when you know perfectly well they won't be able to find the money to fund it.
I'm fed up with politicians voting themselves huge pay rises when the rest of us are lucky if we get 2%, never mind bonuses.
I want a party that does more for the NHS and pays more attention to pensioners. Most older people have spent their lives working and paying taxes, their retirement should be the best years of their lives and a well-earned reward for their hard work, not the kind of struggle it seems to be for many with stark choices about which bill to pay and which room to heat.
If there was a charisma contest Cameron would probably win, but only just. Ed Miliband has no charisma, Nick Clegg is usually too depressed, and Nigel Farage is, um, Nigel Farage.
I'll be voting basically because women went through a hell of a lot a century ago to get the rest of us the vote and we owe it to them not to throw this opportunity away. However this time round I don't have a great deal of enthusiasm for it. I feel let down by the party I've supported for years, but they're probably still the least worst alternative.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
When they changed the rules about having a fixed term of office rather than calling it at the sitting Prime Minister's whim my first thought was that we would have months of ridiculous campaigning rather than the four weeks we used to get. I don't think I have been proven wrong. Why can't they just wait until nearer the time? And who will pay the bill?
Maybe I'm missing something, but surely the doctrine that no Parliament can bind its successor makes this the most pointless piece of legislation on the statute book? Any party or coalition capable of governing is also capable of repealing it.
[ 02. February 2015, 18:24: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I would be voting Green but the local party has decided, against my advice, not to put up a candidate. Consequently I will be reluctantly voting SNP. No way I'm voting for that treacherous git Murphy, and that's generous compared with what I could say about the lib dems or tories.
As for education, I received an excellent education at a comprehensive school, one of three in a small town in the south of England. We had a choice of two on our side of town and they catered to everyone from the leafy suburbs to the new housing estates to the village council housing. We got better results than the local private school too. That's what every child should have access to. In Scotland, where I now live, the system gets close, but the cities still suffer the problem of selection by catchment area. I think using banding to create comprehensive intakes in the cities and larger towns would do a lot to combat inequality.
The writing off of 80% of the population at age 11 which would inevitably follow the reintroduction of grammar schools cannot be permitted.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
Reminds me of Harold Wilson's riposte half a century ago to those advocating a massive programme of nationalisation. "So you want to make Marks and Spencers as efficient as the Co-op?"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would be voting Green but the local party has decided, against my advice, not to put up a candidate. Consequently I will be reluctantly voting SNP. No way I'm voting for that treacherous git Murphy, and that's generous compared with what I could say about the lib dems or tories.
As for education, I received an excellent education at a comprehensive school, one of three in a small town in the south of England. We had a choice of two on our side of town and they catered to everyone from the leafy suburbs to the new housing estates to the village council housing. We got better results than the local private school too. That's what every child should have access to. In Scotland, where I now live, the system gets close, but the cities still suffer the problem of selection by catchment area. I think using banding to create comprehensive intakes in the cities and larger towns would do a lot to combat inequality.
The writing off of 80% of the population at age 11 which would inevitably follow the reintroduction of grammar schools cannot be permitted.
I still feel haunted by the memory of friends who went to secondary moderns, and were in effect, shunted onto the waste tip.
And don't tell me that it need not be like that; with the current crop of neo-liberal shits that we have in Parliament, it would be.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
I'd integrate the public schools into the state system, turn the grammar schools into comprehensives and make sure their resources are available to all schools.
I wouldn't salt the earth at our public schools though because that would ruin some of the best cricket pitches anywhere in the world.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
At the moment I'm seriously thinking of spoiling my ballot paper. None of the available parties has earned my vote and unfortunately the only way of saying "None of the above" is either to spoil the paper or not to vote at all. I'm also looking around to see if there are any campaigns I can attach myself to in order to argue for the inclusion of "none of the above" in future elections.
Yes, I feel a kind of impotent fury, since I am faced with the prospect of 3 centre-right parties, who have taken neo-liberalism to their bosom. I suppose I could do a protest vote, big deal.
That would be 38 Degrees. The idea was taken to a select committee on voter engagement last year and there's a video available. Lots of slightly horrified politicians who could not believe that some voters are fed up enough to spoil papers or choose none of the above.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
As literally as you mean to "destroy every fucking comprehensive".
(And yes, the word "fucking" is the least offensive thing about your sentiment...)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
Reminds me of Harold Wilson's riposte half a century ago to those advocating a massive programme of nationalisation. "So you want to make Marks and Spencers as efficient as the Co-op?"
Guess where I shop ever week? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
I'd integrate the public schools into the state system, turn the grammar schools into comprehensives and make sure their resources are available to all schools.
I don't understand how this would work. On a practical level, opening Eton rowing lake to all schoolchildren isn't going to benefit all schoolchildren because there'd be only one rowing lake to be shared by hundreds of thousands.*
But if you spend thousands of pounds a year educating your child who is suddenly turfed out of his private school and into a comp, are you likely to just sit and accept that fact? Isn't it likely that the parents of the children in now defunct public schools will get together and arrange for them to continue to get the added benefits that a public school education brings, whether by after-comprehensive school activities or social groups, etc.?
*Although they probably already do allow others to use it? Don't know.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(And yes, the word "fucking" is the least offensive thing about your sentiment...)
I'd always put both words in Crossman's (admittedly alleged and private) statement in rather the same category.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But if you spend thousands of pounds a year educating your child who is suddenly turfed out of his private school and into a comp, are you likely to just sit and accept that fact? Isn't it likely that the parents of the children in now defunct public schools will get together and arrange for them to continue to get the added benefits that a public school education brings, whether by after-comprehensive school activities or social groups, etc.?
This is pretty much the point. Not that we completely eliminate the hideous amount of privilege that is conferred upon a child by buying them a place at a private school, but that the parents are now vocal agitators with a vested interest in improving the lot of the 93% of children in the state sector they previously could afford to ignore.
Yes, it is social engineering, and it's exactly social engineering in the way that private schools are social engineering, except this benefits the many, not just the few.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no reason whatever why vocational and academic qualifications should not be celebrated and honoured side by side. So what if you won't get an A* in economics, if you come out of further education with the equivalent qualification in being an electrician, plumber, nurse or mechanic then excellend.
As mentioned, my son's secondary school does offer Btecs in subjects such as bricklaying (level 1) and engineering (level 2) and health and social care (level 2) and more - level 2 is equivalent to GCSE. This is in an ordinary academy and these are taught alongside GCSEs so pupils can do both, thus removing the need for separate grammar and secondary moderns and opening up opportunities for all without judgement. We are happy for our mathematically minded child to take a Btec in engineering alongside his GCSEs as this will likely be useful for his future science or technology career.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not stand yourself as a "none of the above" independent?
Because knowing my luck, I'd win. And on my list titled "Things I'd Like To Be", "an MP" is just below "found dead in a ditch".
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
The priority is to get these cruel cynical bastards out of office, even if it's a matter of choosing the lesser of the two evils. I'd love to think that the Greens could get a lot of seats but they can't. So I'll vote Labour, unenthusiastically. I learnt my lesson in 2010 when I voted Green and the Tories took the seat from Labour by fewer votes than the Greens attracted. I doubt very much that many of those Green voters would have considered voting Tory.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
The Greens are more of an unknown factor. There are many people who are well to the left of Labour who believe that the Greens are likewise. In fact, the Greens range from being young and socialist to older and liberal.
I'm a Labour party member, but now that I'm registered in Ynys Mon, I'm voting Plaid Cymru. Leanne Wood is impressive, and they're one of the few parties against austerity, the plaque of modern politics in the EU. In effect, I'm hoping that Labour would lose its seat. I guess this would be seen as treason by some of my old comrades in Chester. (If I would be registered in Chester I would vote Labour)
A Labour/Plaid Cymru/SNP/Green coalition would be good, but not as good as many on the left expect.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... there's a video available. Lots of slightly horrified politicians who could not believe that some voters are fed up enough to spoil papers or choose none of the above.
Yes. I'm about three-quarters through watching that, and what I'm getting over and over again from it is a profound disrespect from MPs towards the people they should be ultimately accountable to.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
A Labour/Plaid Cymru/SNP/Green coalition would be good, but not as good as many on the left expect.
I rather suspect that the odds it being worth including the Green party in any coalition are slim.
It does, however, seem reasonably likely that we'll end up not only with no single party holding a majority, but with no two parties holding a majority.
Now that the SNP have reneged on their principled position of not voting on things that don't affect Scotland, they look to be a real player in the next government. The chance that they'd find common ground with the Conservative party seems close to zero. I'd put money on a grand "anyone but the Tories" coalition before I'd expect a Con/SNP effort.
Basically, I think the options are:
Con/Lib (status quo)
Lab/SNP
Lab/SNP/Plaid
Lab/SNP/Lib
and just possibly
Lab/Lib (although that doesn't seem very likely)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
And yes, I didn't mention UKIP, because I think they're going to fizzle out and go nowhere. On the other hand, it would be amusing to discover that Nick "Norman" Clegg ended up playing kingmaker again, with his choice between Con/UKIP and Lab/SNP/Plaid as partners. It might end up as a game of who hates who least.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
The Greens are more of an unknown factor. There are many people who are well to the left of Labour who believe that the Greens are likewise. In fact, the Greens range from being young and socialist to older and liberal.
It's fairly easy to judge, however, because Green party policy is decided democratically and is publically available. It's fairly demonstrable that the Greens are both to the left and more socially liberal than Labour (not that either of those things is a challenge under present circumstances).
And yes, I'd also rule out a tory/SNP coalition, because any attempt would see the shout of "naw fuckin' way" ring from city to island to glen before the ink was dry and the SNP would risk being decimated at the next Holyrood election.
[ 03. February 2015, 05:29: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Now that the SNP have reneged on their principled position of not voting on things that don't affect Scotland, they look to be a real player in the next government.
I think Nicola Sturgeon got it wrong to raise that possibility, though I've only heard it discussed in relation to the NHS. AIUI, it's never been SNP policy, more of a "gentlemans agreement" by individual SNP MPs - and I suspect that if Nicola Sturgeon was to tell her MPs to vote on a clearly non-Scottish-only matter then she may well find many of her MPs finding other business they need to do that day.
The problem, of course, is deciding what constitutes an "English-only matter". Virtually anything decided for England (and Wales) has the possibility of knock-on effects in Scotland.
Though, I think there was never any problem in principal about the SNP going a UK government, because so few powers are fully devolved anyway. There would be no issues from a Scottish perspective to SNP MPs serving on the Cabinet in areas of defence, international affairs, etc. In that event, I wonder what would be the price the SNP would want to join a coalition - it's probably too soon for a further referendum, all parties have committed themselves to further devolution. From the SNP policies I would find it great if they were to ask for scrapping Trident and easing immigration controls were part of the price they asked to form a government, maybe reducing voting age to 16.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Now that the SNP have reneged on their principled position of not voting on things that don't affect Scotland, they look to be a real player in the next government.
I think Nicola Sturgeon got it wrong to raise that possibility, though I've only heard it discussed in relation to the NHS. AIUI, it's never been SNP policy, more of a "gentlemans agreement" by individual SNP MPs - and I suspect that if Nicola Sturgeon was to tell her MPs to vote on a clearly non-Scottish-only matter then she may well find many of her MPs finding other business they need to do that day.
The problem, of course, is deciding what constitutes an "English-only matter". Virtually anything decided for England (and Wales) has the possibility of knock-on effects in Scotland.
Though, I think there was never any problem in principal about the SNP going a UK government, because so few powers are fully devolved anyway. There would be no issues from a Scottish perspective to SNP MPs serving on the Cabinet in areas of defence, international affairs, etc. In that event, I wonder what would be the price the SNP would want to join a coalition - it's probably too soon for a further referendum, all parties have committed themselves to further devolution. From the SNP policies I would find it great if they were to ask for scrapping Trident and easing immigration controls were part of the price they asked to form a government, maybe reducing voting age to 16.
Is it still the policy of the SNP to favour independence, even though it's supposedly "the settled will of the people of Scotland to have devolution" ? That's the bigger issue isn't it? The Conservatives are in favour of the union and seem highly unlikely to be willing to govern with a party who are in favour of it being split up.
The prospect of Labour being in coallition with Plaid and the SNP is interesting for the same reason - they were also against independence. Add in the fact that Labour could be denied an outright majority because they get battered by the SNP and lose lots of Scottish seats to them, and Milliband could have real gritted teeth.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Pergida...
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Pergida...
I don't think they'll be standing...
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Pergida...
I don't think they'll be standing...
Give it time, give it time.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Is it still the policy of the SNP to favour independence, even though it's supposedly "the settled will of the people of Scotland to have devolution" ?
Yes, that's still the policy of the SNP. I don't think anyone would say the referendum describes the "settled will of the people of Scotland" as though the vote marks an unchangeable decision. It's the decision of the people registered to vote last year, I think everyone agrees that that decision is "settled" for a period where either the electorate remains largely unchanged (ie: at least 10 years to allow children to grow up and reach voting age, current older voters to die and some migration) or the situation in the UK radically changes (eg: a yes vote on referendum on the UK leaving the EU). Which effectively means that the SNP are not realistically going to be able to ask for another referendum in the coming Parliament. Which, IMO, leaves open the option of the SNP participating in government with Unionist parties for this Parliament as that question will be well on the back burner. Further devolved powers may be something the SNP could ask for if asked to help form a coalition government. Whether the chance at being the larger partner in a coalition government is enough to get the "will you join us?" question passed the gritted teeth of Milliband is another matter.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
The Green Party are a joke. Witness this from last week...
Green Party Interview on BBC1’s Andrew Marr programme
In which the official Green position was to allow people to join Al Qaeda providing they don't do so in order to do anything illegal - like people join Al Qaeda for 10% off at Costa Coffee of something.
To be followed up by this from earlier this week...
Daily Telegraph Interview
In which the following is quoted...
quote:
Ms Bennett called Isil, also known as Islamic State, and Al-Qaeda are “hideous terrorist organisations” and said its supporters were illegally inciting violence.
The comments are a significant reverse on the previous Green Party position which said merely being a member of al-Qaeda, the IRA and other terrorist groups should no longer be a criminal offence.
Only weeks ago Ms Bennett publicly defended the position, telling BBC1’s Andrew Marr programme the Government must not punish people “for what they think or what they believe”.
However appearing on a question and answer sessions on Sky News, the Green leader appeared to announce a change in policy on the issues.
So basically one week ago they stated a policy and then in the intervening week they realised their policy was stupid and so they backtracked on it.
And some of you want them in government. Seriously if you vote for this lot you really need sectioning.
The interview is amusing for many, many reasons. I laughed like a drain. I do hope Mr Cameron gets them into the debates because I can't wait to see the Boy Millibore trying to out-left la Bennett.
Oh, and I intend to keep linking to that clip as we get closer to the election, just for laughs really.
[ 03. February 2015, 10:48: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So basically one week ago they stated a policy and then in the intervening week they realised their policy was stupid and so they backtracked on it.
On one hand, a party leader says something stupid, and hurries to correct it.
On the other, a party leader says something stupid, puts it into law, keeps on defending it despite all evidence to the contrary.
Absolutely certain I know which I'd prefer. How about you?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I think her position is that membership of an organisation should not be a crime, and if membership of a specific organisation necessarily implies terrorism, then you can and should be prosecuted for the terrorist part, not the membership part.
Regarding Islamic State, I understand there are a fair number of young men who go off to Syria because they have the political awareness of the terrorists in Four Lions , and who come to their senses when they actually get to Kobane or wherever. These people have valuable intelligence and pragmatically there ought to be a mechanism for coming to an accommodation with them.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.
You've fallen for Cameron's cunning plan, then. Get soemone like deano to rubbish the Greens: people like you then think they must be worth voting for: left(ish) votes splits and lets the Conservative in through the middle.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.
You still have time to change your mind.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.
You've fallen for Cameron's cunning plan, then. Get soemone like deano to rubbish the Greens: people like you then think they must be worth voting for: left(ish) votes splits and lets the Conservative in through the middle.
Oh I think the video speaks for itself. I don't need to rubbish the reds, sorry greens. They open their mouths and they do the rubbishing all by themselves.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.
You've fallen for Cameron's cunning plan, then. Get soemone like deano to rubbish the Greens: people like you then think they must be worth voting for: left(ish) votes splits and lets the Conservative in through the middle.
Oh I think the video speaks for itself. I don't need to rubbish the reds, sorry greens. They open their mouths and they do the rubbishing all by themselves.
The damage shown in that video is a matter of what is being said. The government has the scope to cause real damage and hardship and this one is doing just that, quite deliberately.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I've not had a chance to watch the clip (I can't view You-tube here), but I see nothing particularly objectionable to a policy that says membership of an organisation should not be a crime. That is not incompatible with a statement that a particular organisation is abhorent, that the principal activities of an organisation are illegal etc. Membership of the Conservative Party should not be illegal, even though the actions of Conservative Party leaders has been an appalling abuse of human rights and freedoms.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
So what would be the peaceful wing of ISIS Al Qaeda or the IRA?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It doesn't matter. It is entirely reasonable (whether you agree with the reasoning or not) to say that simple membership of an organisation is not a crime. The particular features of a particular organisation need not make any difference, whether that's the local real ale society or a violent criminal organisation. Of course, if someones activities within that organisation are illegal then they should be prosecuted for those activities. So, members of the real ale society should be prosecuted for planning to blow up trucks carrying cans of Carling, but not for their membership of the society.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, members of the real ale society should be given medals for services to civilisation for planning to blow up trucks carrying cans of Carling, but not for their membership of the society.
FIFY
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
It is entirely reasonable (whether you agree with the reasoning or not) to say that simple membership of an organisation is not a crime. The particular features of a particular organisation need not make any difference, whether that's the local real ale society or a violent criminal organisation. Of course, if someones activities within that organisation are illegal then they should be prosecuted for those activities.
It's not even as if it hasn't happened before *cough* Northern Ireland peace process *cough*
What Cameron and co. seem to be saying at the moment is that there is no way back for (British) Muslims who run off to Syria to join ISIS, however penitent they may be and however little violence they were personally involved in. It looks good on the front page of the Daily Mail, but is it really going to help the situation? I don't think so.
[ 03. February 2015, 12:44: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
It is entirely reasonable (whether you agree with the reasoning or not) to say that simple membership of an organisation is not a crime. The particular features of a particular organisation need not make any difference, whether that's the local real ale society or a violent criminal organisation. Of course, if someones activities within that organisation are illegal then they should be prosecuted for those activities.
It's not even as if it hasn't happened before *cough* Northern Ireland peace process *cough*
What Cameron and co. seem to be saying at the moment is that there is no way back for (British) Muslims who run off to Syria to join ISIS, however penitent they may be and however little violence they were personally involved in. It looks good on the front page of the Daily Mail, but is it really going to help the situation? I don't think so.
To stretch the Northern Ireland analogy, with ISIL etc we are currently at about the stage where we were interning paramilitary activists/terrorist suspects/suspected members of proscribed organisations in the H blocks at The Maze prison, as well as those convicted of terrorist (and other) offences. That too went down well with the tabloids, but I don't think it helped as a part of the peace process.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It doesn't matter. It is entirely reasonable (whether you agree with the reasoning or not) to say that simple membership of an organisation is not a crime. The particular features of a particular organisation need not make any difference, whether that's the local real ale society or a violent criminal organisation. Of course, if someones activities within that organisation are illegal then they should be prosecuted for those activities. So, members of the real ale society should be prosecuted for planning to blow up trucks carrying cans of Carling, but not for their membership of the society.
But is there not a difference between an organisation that is incidentally violent and an organisation that has violence as a core part of its ideology?
Your real ale fans joined the real ale society to enjoy beer, even if some of them happen to be violent. I don't see how one can become an Islamic State jihadist without subscribing to its violent policies.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
But, the question is does that matter until such a point that a member of such an organisation actively engages in violent action - either directly in training to use weapons, or less directly by providing financial support or harbouring those who plan to/have conducted violent acts? When someone has done something like that it doesn't much matter whether they were a member of a particular organisation, whether Jihadist or a real-ale society, they've committed an act that they should quite rightly be prosecuted for. If someone never does something like that, should mere membership of an organisation itself be a crime?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Inactive membership of an organisation may provide comfort and moral support to its active members- 'I've got all these people behind me', 'I'm doing this for people like them', and so on. Whether this justifies banning membership of these particular organsiations at this particular time, I'm not qualified to say; but I think that in principle it can be perfectly reasonable to criminalise mere membership of an organisation.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't see how one can become an Islamic State jihadist without subscribing to its violent policies.
That's kind of the point, though - if membership implies terrorism, you can prosecute the terrorism; you don't need to prosecute membership.
(FWIW I can see Albertus' point as well - I just don't think the Greens' position is as absurd as it's been caricatured.)
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's kind of the point, though - if membership implies terrorism, you can prosecute the terrorism; you don't need to prosecute membership.
Possibly. Though if the problem is jihadists travelling from Britain to Syria (where they disappear off the radar) we might be able to prove intention to join the Islamic State but not be able to prove what they get up to when they're there.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It's a balancing act between attempting to prevent terrorist acts and maintaining democratic society and human rights - in this case the freedom of association (enshrined in, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights). Clearly the ECHR contains enough leeway to allow criminalisation of membership of a small number of organisations, presumably under some form of national security justification. But, in pursuit of national security is the erosion of human rights and democratic principals too big a price to pay? It seems that the Greens would think so. I admit I certainly lean that way too, it seems absurd that we defend democracy and human rights by eroding those same things we claim to be defending.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Given that the tories have been responsible for the deaths of around 60 British citizens (if not more) due to their welfare cuts I would suggest that we should consider prohibiting membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I'm with the Greens on this. Do something wrong; get prosecuted. Believe something wrong that may lead to doing something wrong? Get monitored proportionally to the danger posed.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
It's not as if you can just go jihadist.com and set up a standing order for £2 per month to sign up though is it?
If the police want to know who has joined CAMRA recently, they can just go and ask at their office (or at least, obtain a warrant to do so)
In the midst of all the abuse scandals in the UK, there was some discussion of "The Paedophile Information Exchange". That would be unpleasant for most people to contemplate, but their aim was to campaign for legalisation of paedophilia, which is another twist. You can't make it illegal to campaign to change the law can you - otherwise all political activity would be illegal.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
It would, however, be perfectly reasonable to prevent PIE members working with children. Similarly it would make sense to prohibit ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates being involved with running religious charities (to reduce their ability to radicalise others).
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Possibly. Though if the problem is jihadists travelling from Britain to Syria (where they disappear off the radar) we might be able to prove intention to join the Islamic State but not be able to prove what they get up to when they're there.
This is completely orthogonal to the issue raised. They can already do this RIGHT NOW, and indeed do, without headlining their ambitions by declaring themselves a member of "The Islamic State in Iraq, Bradford Branch" first.
Criminalising membership of a particular organisation for the purposes of arresting people, really only works if you then apply it retrospectively.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So basically one week ago they stated a policy and then in the intervening week they realised their policy was stupid and so they backtracked on it.
On one hand, a party leader says something stupid, and hurries to correct it.
On the other, a party leader says something stupid, puts it into law, keeps on defending it despite all evidence to the contrary.
Absolutely certain I know which I'd prefer. How about you?
Oh I see. So manifesto pledges can be seen as "aims", "aspirations" or what have you.
In the end it seems that you feel that a manifesto is something that doesn't have to be anything other than a wish-list, and should be changed if the policies are either stupid or impractical to implement for various reasons?
Also, would membership of the Ku Klux Klan be okay as long as you don't break any laws but just sell sheets on the family plan?
Is it illegal to put a burning cross on someone's lawn? Probably trespass but that's a civil matter isn't it?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
In the end it seems that you feel that a manifesto is something that doesn't have to be anything other than a wish-list, and should be changed if the policies are either stupid or impractical to implement for various reasons?
Well now. Since the Green Party manifesto hasn't been published yet, we'll just have to see.
If you really want me to go through the Conservative party manifesto for 2010 point by point and prove it was nothing more than a wish-list... oh hang on. Stupid and/or impractical, did you say?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh I see. So manifesto pledges can be seen as "aims", "aspirations" or what have you.
In the end it seems that you feel that a manifesto is something that doesn't have to be anything other than a wish-list, and should be changed if the policies are either stupid or impractical to implement for various reasons?
Well, yes. Manifesto pledges are aspirations - until the votes are counted the opening sentence (something like "when elected to government we will ...") can't be anything else. And, certainly for a party (like the Greens) who no one honestly believes can form a majority government then manifestos describe what they will try to do from a position outside government, or within the restrictions of a coalition. And, yes, if circumstances at the time when they start to enact a policy pledge have changed such that the proposed policy is clearly not going to work then it should be ditched - that's simple common sense and pragmatism.
All of which is irrelevant, as at present (AFAIK) the Greens haven't produced a manifesto, so at present they're floating ideas and are free to change those when they write their manifesto if reaction to and discussion of those ideas shows they needed more work.
And, on this occasion, I don't see what's wrong with having a policy that boils down to upholding basic principles of human rights and democracy.
quote:
Also, would membership of the Ku Klux Klan be okay as long as you don't break any laws but just sell sheets on the family plan?
Is it illegal to put a burning cross on someone's lawn? Probably trespass but that's a civil matter isn't it?
Membership of the KKK, fine.
Actions such as wearing white sheets in public (except as a ghost costume on Halloween) and burning crosses will probably fall foul of several laws - it's basically a form of harassment and intimidation, and probably incitement.
So, people can freely join the KKK. But, their actions beyond that may be illegal (and in the case of the KKK, or Jihadists etc, the 'may' will be 'almost certainly') and should be prosecuted appropriately.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All of which is irrelevant, as at present (AFAIK) the Greens haven't produced a manifesto, so at present they're floating ideas and are free to change those when they write their manifesto if reaction to and discussion of those ideas shows they needed more work.
No, but they do have a very detailed statement of their policies. They also have a Manifesto from last year's European elections.
[ 04. February 2015, 07:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
In the end it seems that you feel that a manifesto is something that doesn't have to be anything other than a wish-list, and should be changed if the policies are either stupid or impractical to implement for various reasons?
Well now. Since the Green Party manifesto hasn't been published yet, we'll just have to see.
If you really want me to go through the Conservative party manifesto for 2010 point by point and prove it was nothing more than a wish-list... oh hang on. Stupid and/or impractical, did you say?
Not much point. It all went out of the window when we had to go into coalition with a bunch of do-gooders, hippies and socialists. Pity, but I suspect we would have got more of our manifesto delivered if we had an outright majority.
Don't misunderstand me though. I think manifestos contain aspirations and general policy directions and detail and delivery is always subject to the prevailing conditions when entering government. I don't have a problem with that and I am not one of those who want manifestos to be binding contracts.
But the watermelons have some seriously wacky policies that are, on exposure to the wider general public, laughed at, along with the people proposing them. So they back tracked very quickly. They are just as opportunist as any other political party and to pretend they are somehow above grubbing for votes is a nonsense.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Don't misunderstand me though. I think manifestos contain aspirations and general policy directions and detail and delivery is always subject to the prevailing conditions when entering government. I don't have a problem with that and I am not one of those who want manifestos to be binding contracts.
Except for the Greens, apparently. The kettle called back, and guess what?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, on this occasion, I don't see what's wrong with having a policy that boils down to upholding basic principles of human rights and democracy.
Is not proscribing membership of explicitly terrorist organisations basic human rights? As has been said above I think that's a very arguable point.
But as Deano has pointed out (in his own inimitable way) this policy is now being seen alongside policies on making the economy smaller and destroying British identity. I don't think it's surprising that people look at these in the round and think 'the Greens are a bit bonkers'.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
No Doc. The watermelons promises are so stupid that I welcome their decision to change them. It's the fact that they thought their original policies were viable in the first place that is farcical.
Of course they had no choice but to change it on the hoof when exposed to public view.
It showed that they are not a serious party. They are seriously out of touch with the real world and with real people. They obviously though that because a load of wierd-beards, Guardipendant readers and Marxists liked their policies then they would be acceptable to normal folk. When the normal folk laughed at those policies they changed them.
Like I said, anyone voting for them ought to be sectioned!
[ 04. February 2015, 09:11: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But the watermelons
By which, I assume you mean the Green Party
quote:
have some seriously wacky policies
specifically upholding significant principles of democracy and human rights, namely the freedom of association
quote:
that are, on exposure to the wider general public, laughed at, along with the people proposing them. So they back tracked very quickly.
I'm not laughing. Besides, a move from "membership of organisations will not be illegal" to "membership of organisations will not be illegal, but other crimes committed as a member of an organisation will be prosecuted" isn't exactly a back track - a clarification and qualification, certainly, but it's stretching the word "back track".
quote:
They are just as opportunist as any other political party and to pretend they are somehow above grubbing for votes is a nonsense.
They may be a bit naive, and not as well resourced, so probably don't run statements through focus groups and PR gurus as effectively as other parties. But, some people find it refreshing to see the process by which policy ststements evolve rather than have to be content with PR consultant polished, focus group evaluated, sales pitches.
[ 04. February 2015, 09:33: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]They may be a bit naive, and not as well resourced, so probably don't run statements through focus groups and PR gurus as effectively as other parties. But, some people find it refreshing to see the process by which policy ststements evolve rather than have to be content with PR consultant polished, focus group evaluated, sales pitches.
So you are saying it is refreshing that a disorganised bunch of hippies are standing for Parliament, to make the laws which will affect real people?
Okay fair enough, it's a free country and I'm all for them standing. But it is the idea of actually VOTING for them that is tragic. That someone actually believes they are worth voting for is laughable and desperately sad at the same time.
It isn't like voting for the Monster Raving Looney Party. That's a joke and funny. But voting for the watermelons in the hope they can actually influence real government policy in Parliament is a sign of a deep mental illness.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]They may be a bit naive, and not as well resourced, so probably don't run statements through focus groups and PR gurus as effectively as other parties. But, some people find it refreshing to see the process by which policy ststements evolve rather than have to be content with PR consultant polished, focus group evaluated, sales pitches.
So you are saying it is refreshing that a disorganised bunch of hippies are standing for Parliament, to make the laws which will affect real people?
Okay fair enough, it's a free country and I'm all for them standing. But it is the idea of actually VOTING for them that is tragic. That someone actually believes they are worth voting for is laughable and desperately sad at the same time.
It isn't like voting for the Monster Raving Looney Party. That's a joke and funny. But voting for the watermelons in the hope they can actually influence real government policy in Parliament is a sign of a deep mental illness.
Book me into the Hartington wing then, because most Green policies seem pretty sensible and in tune with my values to me.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Hoping that I'm not breaking a posting rule (I have no affiliation), I think that this
Let's factcheck the election
Seems a very good idea.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I like an awful lot of what the Greens say. I used to be a member if the party (because, I used to say not entirely jokingly, in the inexplicable absence of a High Church Monarchist Radical Agrarian party, they were the next best thing) and would happily vote for them again- IF they had any chance of getting anywhere. The problem is that in the specific case of Westminster elections, the electoral system means that a Green vote almost always means a vote taken from the main leftwards anti-Conservative challenger, to no good effect. And the situation is so dire in this country now that the priority has to be getting the Conservatives out and a government with some shreds of humanity in, which means in practice voting Labour where they have a chance, unsatisfactory as they are in so many ways.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, maybe, but Labour strike me as Tory-lite now. They have drunk the Kool-Aid of neo-liberalism.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is not proscribing membership of explicitly terrorist organisations basic human rights? As has been said above I think that's a very arguable point.
Freedom of association is basic human right, and a vital part of a functioning democracy. We are, or should be, free to join or form any organisation - and, the more political those organisations are then the more important that freedom is for democracy.
Saying "you can join any organisation, except ... " draws a line. And, lines are dangerous, they have a habit of moving.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, they have- or rather, some of them have- there are people like Jon Cruddas who certainly haven't. I want to give Miliband a good slap and say 'look, you're an intelligent chap, you know in your heart this is all balls (no pun intended although rather apt now I think of it), just grow a pair and say what you think'.
BUT like it or not, they are just about the only viable alternative to 5 more years of torture under Cameron & even worse Osborne (whom I am coming more and more to beieve has, quite seriously, something literally evil about him).
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Saying "you can join any organisation, except ... " draws a line. And, lines are dangerous, they have a habit of moving.
Sorry, AC, that's no good. All laws, especially all prohibitions, are based on drawing lines. And of course lines move- so they should. What we have to do is ensure that lines move appropriately, and that the direction of movement can go both ways if required. Your position so easily turns into a mere cop-out from the difficult and sometimes inevitably compromised task of doing that.
[ 04. February 2015, 10:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, they have- or rather, some of them have- there are people like Jon Cruddas who certainly haven't. I want to give Miliband a good slap and say 'look, you're an intelligent chap, you know in your heart this is all balls (no pun intended although rather apt now I think of it), just grow a pair and say what you think'.
BUT like it or not, they are just about the only viable alternative to 5 more years of torture under Cameron & even worse Osborne (whom I am coming more and more to beieve has, quite seriously, something literally evil about him).
Fair enough, yes, Osborne gives me the jitters. But I always get the sense that Labour soften us up for more Tory nonsense. In any case, I live in a safe Tory seat, so my vote is utterly meaningless. Happy days.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Osborne (whom I am coming more and more to beieve has, quite seriously, something literally evil about him).
His new haircut isn't that bad, is it...?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Still manages to hide the horns (and to be clear, that's not casting moral aspersions on Mrs O)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Saying "you can join any organisation, except ... " draws a line. And, lines are dangerous, they have a habit of moving.
Sorry, AC, that's no good. All laws, especially all prohibitions, are based on drawing lines. And of course lines move- so they should. What we have to do is ensure that lines move appropriately, and that the direction of movement can go both ways if required. Your position so easily turns into a mere cop-out from the difficult and sometimes inevitably compromised task of doing that.
I agree that laws mean drawing lines. And, as such, they should be discussed and examined in detail before being brought into effect - which is the role of Parliament, both Houses, through all the processes that happen there, with input from other relevant organisations (which includes the public directly or via campaign groups and the the media, but also European Courts etc). A difficult and sometimes inevitably compromised task is an apt description.
My concern with many laws passed on the basis of "national security" is that they can often get onto the statute books bypassing a lot of the procedures and scrutiny that would normally be applied, and almost always have some form of human rights implication (association, privacy etc). So, we have a law that says membership of terrorist organisations is illegal, passed through Parliament. But, who gets to decide whether a particular organisation is a terrorist group? Does that decision go through full Parliamentary procedures? The problem is that that particular line can be shifted almost at the whim of the Home Secretary.
And, just to make things clear - I actually think there are occasions when making membership of some organisations illegal is a necessary compromise, though it should be a very unusual measure. So, on that count, I disagree with the Greens. But, I can appreciate where they are coming from, and do not consider that policy to be completely barking. It is a principled position, one that would involve a small risk of appearing to legitimise some view points, but a completely sane and reasonable position to hold.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ah, that makes your position much clearer, thank you. Your concern is with due process and proper scrutiny of arguments. I agree with you that that is absolutely essential.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Book me into the Hartington wing then, because most Green policies seem pretty sensible and in tune with my values to me.
What's Hartington got to do with this? And is this Hartington, the place the cheese comes from, Harrington, some member of the Cavendish or Harrington, some part of Calow Hospital?
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would be voting Green but the local party has decided, against my advice, not to put up a candidate. Consequently I will be reluctantly voting SNP. No way I'm voting for that treacherous git Murphy, and that's generous compared with what I could say about the lib dems or tories.
Maybe that'll change, the Greens have launched a Crowdfunding campaign to put up candidates in 100% of seats. Each candidate needs a £500 deposit, and their target is £72,500. They've got £28,595 so far for the "Give everyone a change to vote Green in 2015" project, according to the Crowdfunder website. . It'll be interesting to see how much that fund grows by in the next 23 days (which is how long it says it has to run).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Maybe that'll change, the Greens have launched a Crowdfunding campaign to put up candidates in 100% of seats. Each candidate needs a £500 deposit, and their target is £72,500. They've got £28,595 so far for the "Give everyone a change to vote Green in 2015" project, according to the Crowdfunder website. . It'll be interesting to see how much that fund grows by in the next 23 days (which is how long it says it has to run).
Alas, it is the wrong Green Party. Though I have just finished sharing the very same link with my local party's Facebook page in the hope that a similar scheme might run in Scotland and the decision can be reviewed.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Ah, of course, they're all separate. I hadn't even clocked where you lived. I've clearly been down south too long - the world ends at the M25! Silly me. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Book me into the Hartington wing then, because most Green policies seem pretty sensible and in tune with my values to me.
What's Hartington got to do with this? And is this Hartington, the place the cheese comes from, Harrington, some member of the Cavendish or Harrington, some part of Calow Hospital?
The Hartington Wing is indeed the mental ward up at Calow hospital. Where voters for the watermelons will be put before being transferred on to Rampton.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Lovely to see you fighting the good fight against stigma there deano.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Not to mention how offensive it is to refer to those of us who are considering voting Green, and in my case at least have previously voted Green. Just because you personally disagree with one or more of their expressed policies does not make those policies wrong, and it certainly doesn't make us certifiably insane to vote for them.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just because you personally disagree with one or more of their expressed policies does not make those policies wrong, and it certainly doesn't make us certifiably insane to vote for them.
I agree. And, IMO, one always has to accept a certain amount of compromise in one's beliefs whenever one casts a vote, as it is almost impossible for anyone to agree 100% with any party's policies.
So one's vote is either cast for the "best" (but not perfect) option; or, more likely, for the "least worst" option.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I dare say most of us are sympathetic to some of the policies of all of the parties, but from where I'm standing there isn't one party that measures up sufficiently for me to endorse them with my vote.
The Tories have a strong sense of fiscal responsibility but have demonstrated that their main concern is for the rich, and the poor can go hang.
Labour have a healthy bias to the poor (though not as healthy as it used to be) but their front bench are generally clueless and ineffectual, and too much inclined to bend to whatever breeze of public opinion is blowing.
The LibDems have shown that they'll do pretty much anything to get a taste of power, and therefore you can't trust a word they say.
Ukip show every sign of being what I believe is termed "bat-shit crazy".
The Greens are admirable in many ways, but unless they change their energy policy to embrace fracking and nuclear, we'll all be reading by candlelight by 2030. Sooner if the Russians have a hissy fit and turn off the gas.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
But don't you think that you should still cast a vote, if for no other reason than to prevent the party you most abhor from getting in? Even if that means "voting tactically", which I would normally abjure?
There is another issue, too. Our local MP is excellent but I do not support his party's values and do not wish them to form the next Government. His main opponent is IMO pretty useless, but I would be happier to see him elected if that boosts his party's numbers in Westminster. Do others face the same dilemma?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But don't you think that you should still cast a vote, if for no other reason than to prevent the party you most abhor from getting in? Even if that means "voting tactically", which I would normally abjure?
I think that's the kind of thinking the politicians count on. I think it's evident from the video that Curiosity Killed... linked to (back on page 1 of this thread) that they think they're entitled to our votes. The sheer arrogance that came across to me in that video - that the voters somehow had a duty to keep the Westminster gravy train running, no matter how currupt it might be - surprised even me.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is another issue, too. Our local MP is excellent but I do not support his party's values and do not wish them to form the next Government.
It's a dilemma caused by the nature of our electoral system. We use one cross on a paper to indicate our preference for at least three different things:
1) Our choice for the particular individual to be our representative in Parliament
2) Our choice of policy package from a party manifesto
3) Our choice of party leader to form the next government
Unfortunately, our preference on all three of those may be different. It's quite conceivable to (say) favour the policies of Labour, not want Milliband to form the next government and prefer the Conservative candidate as the best person to represent your constituency.
As a form of electoral reform that would probably be even more radical than AV/PR/STV how about two votes - one for your local MP, a second for the party/leader you would want to form the government? It would be a more presidential system (though the way we're heading towards an emphasis on leaders debates etc that is more presidential anyway) and runs the possibility of a party without a majority of MPs forming the government. But, would solve one voting dilemma - and also mean at least one vote would count even in the least marginal of seats.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But don't you think that you should still cast a vote, if for no other reason than to prevent the party you most abhor from getting in? Even if that means "voting tactically", which I would normally abjure?
There is another issue, too. Our local MP is excellent but I do not support his party's values and do not wish them to form the next Government. His main opponent is IMO pretty useless, but I would be happier to see him elected if that boosts his party's numbers in Westminster. Do others face the same dilemma?
On the first point, my local MP has a majority of five figures. How on earth do I vote tactically against her? I don't know whether to abstain in disgust, spoil the ballot paper, or get drunk.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the first point, my local MP has a majority of five figures. How on earth do I vote tactically against her? I don't know whether to abstain in disgust, spoil the ballot paper, or get drunk.
"Safe seats" are the modern rotten boroughs, which is why party manifestos are now rigged to appeal to a few voters in marginal constituencies.
It's rare for a safe seat to change in a general election. You usually have to wait for a by-election to shake things up a bit.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But don't you think that you should still cast a vote, if for no other reason than to prevent the party you most abhor from getting in? Even if that means "voting tactically", which I would normally abjure?
There is another issue, too. Our local MP is excellent but I do not support his party's values and do not wish them to form the next Government. His main opponent is IMO pretty useless, but I would be happier to see him elected if that boosts his party's numbers in Westminster. Do others face the same dilemma?
On the first point, my local MP has a majority of five figures. How on earth do I vote tactically against her? I don't know whether to abstain in disgust, spoil the ballot paper, or get drunk.
In frontier USA, the two major political parties each provided funds for their supporters to move to newly colonised areas so that they would have the majority.
Hence the bloody conflicts round Kansas in the civil war. OK - maybe that's not such a good an idea after all.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the first point, my local MP has a majority of five figures. How on earth do I vote tactically against her? I don't know whether to abstain in disgust, spoil the ballot paper, or get drunk.
"Safe seats" are the modern rotten boroughs, which is why party manifestos are now rigged to appeal to a few voters in marginal constituencies.
It's rare for a safe seat to change in a general election. You usually have to wait for a by-election to shake things up a bit.
Yes, and there are about 400 of them, some of them in the same hands since the Victorian age. These exhortations to vote strike me as very hollow. I would vote if it had any meaning.
Posted by Erik (# 11406) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is another issue, too. Our local MP is excellent but I do not support his party's values and do not wish them to form the next Government. His main opponent is IMO pretty useless, but I would be happier to see him elected if that boosts his party's numbers in Westminster. Do others face the same dilemma?
Yes, I find myself in the same position. I rather like or local MP but would not want her party in goverment. Add to that the fact that ours is a pretty-well safe seat and I have very little enthusiasm for voting. The only thing that makes me go is that I think the principle of voting is important, even if there is no one I want to vote for. I am seriously considering spoiling my ballot.
Up thread someone referred to liking a lot of what the Greens say but, as they have very little chance of getting elected, instead voting for another, larger left-leaning party. The problem is I am not sure who this would be.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But don't you think that you should still cast a vote, if for no other reason than to prevent the party you most abhor from getting in? Even if that means "voting tactically", which I would normally abjure?
There is another issue, too. Our local MP is excellent but I do not support his party's values and do not wish them to form the next Government. His main opponent is IMO pretty useless, but I would be happier to see him elected if that boosts his party's numbers in Westminster. Do others face the same dilemma?
On the first point, my local MP has a majority of five figures. How on earth do I vote tactically against her? I don't know whether to abstain in disgust, spoil the ballot paper, or get drunk.
Et tu Brute? My MP had a majority of over 15,000, is not a great constituency MP, both from personal experience and local repute, was tarred and feathered by the expenses scandal* to the extent the constituency party tried to deselect and was still returned with an increased majority last time. The attempt to deselect just brought down the party heavies in support. The only time we've ever seen them locally.
Checking, there is still no candidate for the party that came second last time around for 2015; that's no-one for one of the main three parties. Last time around the options included the BNP, UKIP and the English Democrats as fringe parties, which really aren't where I want to go for a protest vote. So far only UKIP has declared. Why else would I have the information on the "None of the Above" campaign quite so near my fingertips if my voting options weren't quite so bad? I have spoilt my ballot paper with "none of the above" scrawled across it, although not in the last election.
Last time I attempted to vote tactically for the party that came second in the hope that there would be enough of a swing from expenses to make something change. I did investigate the options, met many of the candidates, attended the local hustings and realised that even for the parties that I quite liked some of the policies the candidates being fielded in this safe constituency are weak and/or inexperienced and learning the ropes for a better chance somewhere else the net time around.
* the MP to make the most money in capital gains tax through home switching between their constituency home and Westminster flat, so profited the most in the expenses scandal. Even though the majority of the constituency commute into London to work, including me, and London can be seen from all the vantage points around in the constituency - I have photos to prove it.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
News just in from 38 Degrees on their campaign for "None Of The Above" (NOTA) on ballot papers -
Parliament's Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has said today that the demand for NOTA is such that the next government must hold a public consultation on the issue.
(That's a precis of an email I've just had from them.)
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Living in a LibDem/Labour marginal, it must be UKIP, to put an MP in who will vote with the Conservatives in any case.
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on
:
Surely we don't need a none of the above option when one can simply spoil their ballot paper?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Surely we don't need a none of the above option when one can simply spoil their ballot paper?
A couple of problems:
a) there is no distinction between the incompetent and the angry
b) there is no practical effect even if the spoiled ballots outnumber the valid ones.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
To add to that list:
If/when we get electronic voting, experience of being part of a pilot is that the options are either vote for one of the candidates or not vote.
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
Traditionally I've always voted Labour but I'm extremely reluctant to this time. I actually preferred Labour under Gordon Brown and campaigned for Labour in 2010. Unfortunately, I do not really believe that the current Labour administration would be capable of leading the country. The only person in the shadow cabinet I really rate is Andrew Burnham (and possibly Douglas Alexander), I'd probably vote Labour if he were the leader. I consider Ed Miliband's greatest strength to be that he is at least not Tristram Hunt. I really don't think I could help inflict the current Labour leadership on the nation. I know a lot of people say that if Dave Miliband had been elected as leader instead of Ed Labour would be in a stronger position but I disagree I don't really believe that DM would have been a good leader either. I don't think that its because they're from Manchester and I'm from Liverpool but can't rule out the possibility that powerful, subjective tribalism is playing a part in my thinking. At any rate Slobodan Milosevic once told the Kosovan Albanians, in the early 90s, that they were 'paranoid' so who is to say that any subjective bias on my part is irrational?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Living in a LibDem/Labour marginal, it must be UKIP, to put an MP in who will vote with the Conservatives in any case.
You might have a problem there. If UKIP does take over the Euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative party, they would find themselves at odds with Conservative economic policy which, without the Euro-sceptics, would be as pro-European as Ted Heath ever was.
UKIP might however find solace in the Greens; last time I looked they were distinctly cool on the EU.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The Greens are not pro-EU for the sake of being pro-EU, but are more friendly to the EU than UKIP. The Greeens would seek to reform the EU substantially. In line with their general policy of sustainable economy and subsidiarity, they would seek to empower local government and decentralise powers from Europe and national government to local authority as appropriate, and the emphasis on free-trade within the EU changed to support trade justice and reduce transport distance of consumer goods. The Green Party are very positive about roles for the EU in regard to global challenges - pollution, climate change and trade justice.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
UKIP might however find solace in the Greens; last time I looked they were distinctly cool on the EU.
My understanding is that the Green Party also want to abolish the monarchy and legalize all drugs. That's probably not a UKIP vote-winner.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
UKIP might however find solace in the Greens; last time I looked they were distinctly cool on the EU.
My understanding is that the Green Party also want to abolish the monarchy and legalize all drugs. That's probably not a UKIP vote-winner.
With that divergence from the Greens, it looks like UKIP will be well out on their own.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
UKIP might however find solace in the Greens; last time I looked they were distinctly cool on the EU.
My understanding is that the Green Party also want to abolish the monarchy and legalize all drugs. That's probably not a UKIP vote-winner.
To be precise, the Greens would consider hereditary positions to have no basis in government - which would include hereditary peers in the Lords and the monarchy. But, nothing wrong with a good dose of republicanism.
On drugs their position is quite nuanced. They would decriminalise cannabis (along the lines of the Netherlands), and position of small quantities of drugs for personal use. On the other hand, they would concentrate resources freed from investigating and prosecuting cannabis supply and drugs possession to enforce laws on drug production, importation and supply. They would also increase restrictions on supply and consumption of tobacco and alcohol, and spend more on education of health effects of all drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) and provision of assistance for people to quit.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
It's almost like they've looked at the evidence and decided to try a policy that might work better than the last 50 years of total failure as regards drug policy.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
You can't just legalize something because so many people break the law. You might as well scrap the speed limit, because in decades nobody's managed to stop people breaking it. They just need to make penalties harder and more intimidating. IMO.
If you had a republic, you'd have President Cameron and First Lady Samantha. If you're happy with that, fine.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If you had a republic, you'd have President Cameron and First Lady Samantha. If you're happy with that, fine.
You mean like President Merkel?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
You can't just legalize something because so many people break the law. You might as well scrap the speed limit, because in decades nobody's managed to stop people breaking it. They just need to make penalties harder and more intimidating. IMO.
To what end? What good does it do? It doesn't actually stop people taking drugs. You certainly can legalise something if the law is an ass and no good purpose is served by continuing to enforce it. Maybe we should try your approach with speeding. Confiscate the vehicle of anyone caught speeding and ban them from driving for 5 years. Soon sort out the problem. Or maybe you think that would be too draconian? Prohibition is not an effective means of lowering drug use. The evidence from Portugal and other places that have tried decriminalisation is that it helps to lower drug dependency.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Maybe we should try your approach with speeding. Confiscate the vehicle of anyone caught speeding and ban them from driving for 5 years. Soon sort out the problem. Or maybe you think that would be too draconian?
No, though I'd favour a sliding scale of banning them for 6 months in the first instance then working up to taking their licence off them for repeated offences. If you make it clear you habitually can't stick to the speed limit you can't be trusted to handle a vehicle safely.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The evidence from Portugal and other places that have tried decriminalisation is that it helps to lower drug dependency.
I'm not getting into an argument about this. I don't agree with that, and I'm not taking this tangent any further. Illegal drugs are illegal for a good reason, and as far as I'm concerned they should stay that way, and there's no way I'd ever vote for any party that wanted to decriminalize them.
Which I hope returns us to the subject of the thread.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
"Decriminalise" is an imprecise word. The Green Party policy is to tighten laws in relation to alcohol, tobacco and also some prescription drugs that can be abused (eg: ban on all advertising), loosen the laws on cannabis so that they're similar to the tightened laws on alcohol and tobacco. Which would include licensing of farms and facilities producing cannabis to ensure product safety and that the concentration of active ingredients is low (recognising that some strains of cannabis produce very much stronger product than the weed smoked in earlier generations).
For all other illegal drugs, they would stay illegal. Dealing in these drugs and import or manufacture would still be illegal and prosecuted, with continued confiscation of profits from illegal activities. The only change is that simple possession of very small quantities for personal use will not be something the police and courts would prosecute.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On drugs their position is quite nuanced. They would decriminalise cannabis (along the lines of the Netherlands), and position of small quantities of drugs for personal use. On the other hand, they would concentrate resources freed from investigating and prosecuting cannabis supply and drugs possession to enforce laws on drug production, importation and supply. They would also increase restrictions on supply and consumption of tobacco and alcohol, and spend more on education of health effects of all drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) and provision of assistance for people to quit.
Which makes it easy for headline writers... "Greens Soft On Drugs"
Sorry, but nuance is exploitable. Naiveté isn't charming or admirable in politicians. I prefer my country's leaders to be sharks not herring.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yeah, that's the problem with politics. Dominated by sharks. Powerful predators preying on the weak and vulnerable.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The Hartington Wing is indeed the mental ward up at Calow hospital. Where voters for the watermelons will be put before being transferred on to Rampton.
Oh look, someone who is going to vote for the furthest-right party currently in parliament, making threatening noises about treating dissenters from the capitalist consensus as mentally ill.
Deano, how can you look yourself in the eye? ('With a mirror', says someone at the back.)
t
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Sorry, but nuance is exploitable. Naiveté isn't charming or admirable in politicians. I prefer my country's leaders to be sharks not herring.
Really? I prefer my leaders to be sane and reasonable. Evidence based policy is not naiveté, it's the only sane way of governing a country. The fact that the media doesn't want it tells you everything you need to know about the media barons.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Sorry, but nuance is exploitable. Naiveté isn't charming or admirable in politicians. I prefer my country's leaders to be sharks not herring.
It's quite bad enough for the country to be owned by sharks let alone run by them. Then again, that's what we have right now - can't you tell by the feeding frenzy that's going on?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
As an outsider, I wonder whether the rates of voter registration and voter turnout have a large effect on election outcomes in the UK, especially in recent elections. Here in the US, where the rates of eligible voters who register to vote and the rates of registered voters who actually vote are depressingly low, especially among the most marginalized classes, races, ethnicities, etc., most of the money and volunteer hours spent on campaigning are not really spent to persuade people to change their mind on who to vote for, but rather to energize or anger people who already know who they are likely to vote for enough that they actually vote.
In the UK, how high is the percentage of eligible voters who are registered? I have heard reports about voter turnout going up and down from election to election among registered voters in the UK, but are there efforts to try to increase voter turnout among all sections of society regardless of the election? How much do you think the rates of voter registration and voter turnout have on the outcome of elections (ie, in terms of what parties win seats, what kinds of policies parties support, what kinds of candidates parties nominate, etc) in the UK?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Given a clear-cut issue with which people feel engaged, registration is not a problem. There was 97% registration for the Scottish Referendum, with final turnout of 84.6%.
Which suggests low turnout in any given election is a function of voter interest, rather than difficulty in getting on the Roll.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The main factor in low turn out's is probably the "it won't make a difference" effect. Especially in safe seats where whatever way any individual votes the sitting candidate will get re-elected (or, if they retire from Parliament, whoever the party chooses to replace them with). But, also there's a definite feeling that there's so little difference between the main parties that it's not going to make any difference to our lives who gets in.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
In the US, voter registration and turnout (among eligible voters) is higher among the more affluent than among the less affluent, higher among non-Hispanic whites than among non-Hispanic African-Americans and Hispanics, higher among the elderly than among the young, higher among single men than among single women, etc. The people who "always vote" are stereotypically thought of as elderly and white. In midterm elections, local elections, and special elections (what you call by-elections), where voter turnout here is usually very low, this means that elderly whites can make up a very big part of the electorate turning out to vote and the election outcome often reflects the opinions and interests common to that demographic (long story short, this benefits Republicans in many elections here).
Are these trends also true in the UK (allowing for differences in the ethnic makeup of your population)? If similar differences in voter registration and turnout among different parts of the population exist in the UK, do you think that the effect of it is large enough to shape election outcomes?
Do the political parties there put much effort into "Get Out the Vote" operations (which in the US often involves knocking on the doors of "likely supporters" and asking if they need a ride to the polls)? So many frail elderly people living alone are called and visited relentlessly each major election by people practically (sometimes literally) willing to carry them to the polls. Sometimes I feel good for doing it, like I did when I helped people who had not voted in decades or who had never voted in their life (but had registered long ago). Other times it feels sleazy (in a documentary I watched, a campaign worker does handiwork in an old lady's yard every election as long as she goes to the polls with him). Are things like this common in elections in the UK? Do they have much influence on the results?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Most people who are unable to get to the polling station on their own (and the vast majority of people are in walking distance of theirs) will have a postal vote, which comes with its own problems of people "assisting" the postal voter. I think our voting patterns tend to follow class and age lines rather than ethnic ones, but I'm willing to be corrected on that.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
There was a piece on WatO yesterday, and that data is that a very great many students are now not eligible to vote now that universities can't register them in blocks. There are efforts to register them individually.
Also, the statistic was offered that young black people don't tend to register either, so are grossly under-represented in the electorate. Unlike older white people who own their houses.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Also, another difference to the description of the US presented above is that in general by-elections in the UK have a higher turn-out than general elections. Which I think reflects greater media attention on the constituency (usually at a general election the media only report on a few "key marginals" as though the rest of us don't matter), the presence of leading party members in the constituency (again, in general elections these concentrate on marginals), and also the chance to express an opinion on the government performance mid-term via the ballot box.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Also, another difference to the description of the US presented above is that in general by-elections in the UK have a higher turn-out than general elections.
I'm not sure that's actually true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Turnout_increased_from_general_election
The last time the turnout actually increased was in 1982, and it has increased by more than 5% on fewer than 10 occasions, all before 1970. This tends to be why by-elections produce unusual results and high % vote shares for the likes of UKIP.
[ 13. February 2015, 11:28: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Of course - as was stated on "Newsnight" yesterday - the distribution of votes is all-important, because of the "winner takes all" system we have in the UK. It was suggested that the LibDems may get more parliamentary seats with (say) 5-7% of the vote, than UKIP with (say) 15%, as their supporters are clustered in those key marginal rather than widely distributed.
Likewise, the various nationalist parties around Britain may only gain a relatively small percentage of the total vote, but score highly in their specific areas - for instance, I understand that the SNP could get 40 or 50 MPs from a fairly small percentage of the entire national vote. I'm not saying that is wrong, only that such "anomalies" are built in to the system.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
All agreed, but constituency size matters too.
Take average constituency sizes: these are
- Wales 56,628
- Scotland 65,475
- England 71,858
Even within England, the average Labour MP represented constituency has 70,252 voters against the Conservative represented constituency of 72,816.
And compounding that is the fact that Labour tends to win in constituencies with lower voter turnout: at the 2010 election the average turnout in a Labour won constituency was 61.1% against 68.3% where a conservative won: in England that means a Conservative has to get a majority from 49,733, a Labour MP from 42,924.
The reason why UKIP is likely to damage the Conservatives far more than the other two main parties is that older people are more likely to vote, and are more likely to vote for a right-wing party: that's why Labour should worry about its traditional heartlands in England going UKIP because its their elderly voters who're more likely to desert them.
(Apparently its not only turning out to vote where the elderly are more conscientious either: they are also more likely to ask for a postal vote if they know they're going to be away and more likely to use it. That's why electoral fraud should be taken more seriously in constituencies with large numbers of younger voters.)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Then again, the entire country is owned and run by Conservatives for Conservatives, so why does this matter?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Also, another difference to the description of the US presented above is that in general by-elections in the UK have a higher turn-out than general elections.
I'm not sure that's actually true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Turnout_increased_from_general_election
That'll teach me to post on impressions gained in media reporting of by-elections rather thatn checking facts.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
(Apparently its not only turning out to vote where the elderly are more conscientious either: they are also more likely to ask for a postal vote if they know they're going to be away and more likely to use it. That's why electoral fraud should be taken more seriously in constituencies with large numbers of younger voters.)
Somewhere in that line of reasoning there appears to be a gap. I don't see the link between the elderly being more likely to vote and voter fraud being a more serious issue in constituencies with younger voters.
Does that mean you consider younger voters to be more likely to engage in electoral fraud? Or, that fraud is more likely for people at the polling station than for postal votes (with greater representation by the elderly)?
Indeed, I would quite like to see evidence that there is a significant issue with electoral fraud at all.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
IIRC, the voter fraud that most concerns the authorities is postal vote fraud. It's one of the reasons why they've gone for individual, rather than household, registration.
Of course, they've then disenfranchised a whole bunch of other people, but those people can still register (just).
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Alan Cresswell quote:
Somewhere in that line of reasoning there appears to be a gap. I don't see the link between the elderly being more likely to vote and voter fraud being a more serious issue in constituencies with younger voters.
Does that mean you consider younger voters to be more likely to engage in electoral fraud? Or, that fraud is more likely for people at the polling station than for postal votes (with greater representation by the elderly)?
1. With the exception of care homes and the like, older voters are very unlikely to live in HMOs, which have been highlighted as of major concern in postal vote fraud at the last two elections.
2. No, I do not consider younger voters more likely to engage in electoral fraud, but areas where they live are more likely to suffer from postal voting fraud carried out by ???
There have been cases where older people have been registered for a postal vote without their knowledge and they've then turned up at the polling station: the introduction of signatures for postal voting was meant to put a stop to this.
I say 'meant to' because, as the ongoing trial of Lutfur Rahman is hearing, a signature on a form requesting a postal ballot is no guarantee against later fraud.
The report of the Electotal Commission into Electoral Fraud (published January 2014) makes it clear that although not widespread, there is a problem with electoral fraud in some areas and that those steps which have so far been taken to reduce fraud in postal voting are not adequate.
Electoral fraud is more likely in some areas than others and where it is a problem it may well occur both at polling stations and via the postal voting system.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
For some younger people it does seem to be a bit about that they don't really know who to vote for, so they end up not doing it.
I'm not sure if that makes sense, so an example is the guys I work with. We were talking a few weeks ago about politics and whether they were going to vote. One of them said he doesn't know who to vote for, and he doesn't know what people mean when they say "Left wing", "Right Wing" or whatever, so although he thinks he probably should vote, he might not bother. He's 27, and certainly not stupid in any way, he just doesn't know about stuff like that.
That said, many people vote for what they think a party is or believes in or stands for, without actually knowing about their policies. I reckon that the Vote for Policies site (which updates to the 2015 manifesto stuff on February 19th) and The Political Compass site would be really useful and interesting for both those groups of people. They've certainly helped consolidate and confirm who I'll be voting for (I'm happy to be a watermelon, and anyone who thinks that makes me mentally ill, well, I have mental health issues anyway, and it doesn't make me any less of a person or my views less valid, so that's just dandy with me, thanks ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
The first of those shows you policies with no party attached (although some are glaringly obvious which party they're from), and at the end shows you a nice little pie-chart and breakdown of how you voted on each area.
The second shows you where-ish you stand on a Left-Right economic scale along with a vertical Libertarian-Authoritarian scale, and summarises what it means by those things and how they relate to the parties.
Both are interesting and can be a bit of a surprise. Worth a look, and quite illuminating.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I reckon that the Vote for Policies site (which updates to the 2015 manifesto stuff on February 19th) and The Political Compass site would be really useful and interesting for both those groups of people.
...
Both are interesting and can be a bit of a surprise. Worth a look, and quite illuminating.
According to the first link I'm 40% Lib Dem, 40% UKIP and 20% Conservative. According to the second I'm economically right wing and socially libertarian.
Aside from the Lib Dems and Tories being the other way round than I'd expected, there aren't many surprises there.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The Evangelical Alliance has published a survey on attitudes among their people.
It was gratifying that they were more concerned with overseas aid, people on benefits etc. than most people and that they were more likely to vote Labour.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I've had a very quick look at that. It seems that Evangelicals are more likely than the populace as a whole to vote etc. The only problem is that the survey was largely confined to folk who responded via the EA website or email solicitation - i.e. those who were interested enough to do so. It could be that there is a vast "silent majority" of Evangelicals who are far less engaged than the survey might suggest. I'm not saying that the EA has got it wrong, merely that such are the limitations of surveys.
[ 20. February 2015, 17:55: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I'm 83% green, 17% Labour on Vote for Policies and just off the scale as a leftist libertarian on The Political Compass. I'm usually somewhere thereabouts but I reckon the Political Compass has recalibrated as we have lurched towards to the authoritarian right in recent years.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
This is my Vote for Policies result.
On the Political Compass I'm pretty solidly West & South.
Nothing surprising to me there. I do like the slightly changed format on the Vote for Policies site now, where you make up a shortlist for each policy area, then chose from amongst those. I think it made me think a bit more about what my priorities are.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
So, now Parliament's been dissolved and the Election Campaign has officially begun, what are you thinking?
Could the ascendancy of smaller parties make this one more interesting?
Is there any chance of the UK moving towards real Left Wing politics in the nearish future? The left wing option is the Green Party (and Left Unity )- but are the Greens doomed to be hamstrung by tactical voting?
And UKIP - bloody hell. The more I hear of them, the more frightening it is that people vote for them.
(also, I did like Pyx_e's description in Hell of "freaky lying puppets" on the news)
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
So, now Parliament's been dissolved and the Election Campaign has officially begun, what are you thinking?
Mostly, I'm thinking that I am glad that I don't live in the UK any more.
It seems clear that Cameron is going to lead a very personalised and abusive campaign against Milliband (aided as always by the massed ranks of the right-wing press). I suspect that - to a certain degree - this will be successful, although at the cost of reducing still further the opinions of "yer av'rage punter" with regards to politicians.
Farage will win his seat. Carswell will retain his for UKIP. Overall, UKIP will benefit in comparison to the mud-slinging activities of the Tories.
Labour and the SNP will just about get enough seats to form an alliance between them. But the cost of meeting the ever-increasing demands of the SNP will quickly destroy the credibility of a Milliband government.
In the meantime, the Tories will ditch Cameron and go for Boris, who will be installed as leader just in time for another election (caused by the SNP demands eventually becoming impossible to meet). General Election 2016 will then see the Tories easily come home to a majority (especially as the "Boris Factor" will quickly dispel the appeal of Farage).
In the meantime, the Lib Dems will disintegrate. What remains of their MPs will be further reduced when a small group jump ship and join Labour.
There! Sorted!
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
<snip>
Labour and the SNP will just about get enough seats to form an alliance between them. But the cost of meeting the ever-increasing demands of the SNP will quickly destroy the credibility of a Milliband government.
</snip>
Ed Milliband has ruled out an alliance with the SNP, saying he would not give them any cabinet places in any government he was leader of.
He hasn't ruled out a "confidence and supply" deal with them though, where the SNP supported Labour on a vote by vote basis.
However, lots of Labour MPs are apparently willing to work with the SNP to force Milliband further left in any government arrangement, and prevent cuts to spending etc etc.
With the SNP on course to batter Labour in Scotland (according to the poles), and all the UKIP stuff, it's certainly going to be the most fascinating election for ages.
And that's my biggest prediction - it'll be interesting ;-)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Some kind of informal deal between Labour and the SNP (or A N Other) could well be on. Remember the Lib-Lab pact of the late seventies which kept the Callaghan government in power for 18 months despite no overall majority. It only covered motions of "No Confidence", but the existence of the pact kept the government in place.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
A suspect that no single party will get an overall majority. But, who has the seats to carry the balance of power will be interesting.
I hope that UKIP flop. But, realistically 2-3 seats might go that way. More significantly, the impact on Tory seats elsewhere will be interesting. If there are enough defectors to UKIP that may give a space for Labour or the Libdems to sneak in. If that happens in enough places where the LibDems currently hold the seat or where they were close second then UKIP may just save their bacon.
So options.
1. Tories the largest party. They won't do a deal with UKIP, even if UKIP hold enough seats to make it worthwhile. I doubt that the LibDems would be happy about going into coalition again, but they may be in a good position to wring a deal out of Cameron that works a lot better for them than 5 years ago - but, would effectively send all their left wingers packing and end them as a party (what's left might as well join the Tories).
2. Labour the largest party. SNP have said they won't form a coalition. There may be enough LibDems to tip the balance, maybe even a Green or two. It would be a better coalition for them than with the Tories. An "understanding" with the SNP and PC might enable Labour to run a minority government.
3. Tories slightly the largest party, but the combination of Labour and SNP/PC reaches a small majority. SNP have said no to a coalition, but if the alternative was a minority Tory government ...
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Yes, no cabinet ministers isn't equivalent to no alliance at all.
An interesting post-election possibility is the emergence of a progressive 'front'-type party, comprising the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I saw on the news at lunchtime that in Clegg's own constituency, Lib Dems are behind Labour. So them needing a new leader in the immediate aftermath of the election could be a juicy twist as well. I wonder if they've already plotted who should get it next? Although if their leader could lose his seat, who knows who might be available...
Nigel Farage has said that if he didn't win he'd have to stand down as he couldn't run his parliamentary party from a pub over the road from Westminster. So, he must be expecting to either got no seats at all, or at least his and a few more. (Although watching UKIP get none would be hilarious, whatever else happened).
I presume that the SNP accept that they won't be able to get another referendum out of anyone, so are they just going for "more cash and more powers for Holyrood?" They also seem to have an interesting twist in the leadership stakes if Salmond wins a Westminster seat. Sturgeon has clearly said she remains in charge no matter what, but that could be an interesting dynamic as well.
How about - no clear winner, everyone hates the nationalists, Con/Lab coalition? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
I presume that the SNP accept that they won't be able to get another referendum out of anyone, so are they just going for "more cash and more powers for Holyrood?"
They're a left-of-centre party going for left-of-centre policies. They've been campaigning against e.g.Trident for years (decades?) and they will continue to do so.
In the run up to gaining the devolved Parliament at Holyrood they may have been a one-trick pony party, but the experience of being the opposition party for several years and the main party since 2007 means that they are no longer all about independence.
[ 01. April 2015, 13:47: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
If the Tories win, or form a government, wouldn't the pressure for independence become irresistible? The negative comments about the SNP might also have an effect, as some people seem to be almost saying that they have no right to any influence at Westminster. Eh?
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the Tories win, or form a government, wouldn't the pressure for independence become irresistible? The negative comments about the SNP might also have an effect, as some people seem to be almost saying that they have no right to any influence at Westminster. Eh?
I'm not sure why it would up the pressure for independence. After all, Labour don't support independence either, so why are the Tories "worse" from that perspective?
I think for most people, the question of "English votes for English laws" isn't just about nationalist parties voting. Some people feel that Scottish MPs shouldn't vote on issues in Westminster when the matter is devolved in Scotland, as their constituents won't be affected (directly at least).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the Tories win, or form a government, wouldn't the pressure for independence become irresistible? The negative comments about the SNP might also have an effect, as some people seem to be almost saying that they have no right to any influence at Westminster. Eh?
I'm not sure why it would up the pressure for independence. After all, Labour don't support independence either, so why are the Tories "worse" from that perspective?
I think for most people, the question of "English votes for English laws" isn't just about nationalist parties voting. Some people feel that Scottish MPs shouldn't vote on issues in Westminster when the matter is devolved in Scotland, as their constituents won't be affected (directly at least).
I thought that the day after the referendum, Cameron made a rather startling speech, which seemed to go against the emollient stuff about 'stay with us'. Well, it seemed pretty abrasive. But it's probably correct that hostility to Labour has grown, and Brown and Murphy are attracting some opprobrium.
But wouldn't some SNP activists hope for a Tory govt, well covertly at least, on the grounds that the enemy is in plain sight?
[ 01. April 2015, 14:16: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
For what it's worth ("very little" I hear you cry!), here's my tuppence at the moment:
Conservatives to lose some marginals to Labour, but Labour to lose badly in Scotland to the SNP.
I don't think the Lib Dems will do quite as badly as most polls predict, for the reason that most Lib Dem marginals have the Tories in 2nd place. Disaffected Lib Dem voters are unlikely to switch to Labour given the risk of allowing the Tories in (something they wouldn't have had to worry about if the Yes campaign for AV had prevailed). The exception to this might be in Sheffield Hallam, where the latest
Ashcroft Poll has Nick Clegg swapping his seat in the House of Commons for one on a sofa with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo.
If the SNP do hold the balance of power, I wouldn't be surprised if they asked a Labour team to head to Glasgow or Edinburgh for coalition talks rather than go down to London themselves.
My current bet is that the SNP will demand too much, Labour won't go into coalition, form a minority government, fail a vote of confidence when it comes to the first budget and then have to call another general election.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the Tories win, or form a government, wouldn't the pressure for independence become irresistible? The negative comments about the SNP might also have an effect, as some people seem to be almost saying that they have no right to any influence at Westminster. Eh?
Yes, before the referendum we had Cameron saying "we want you to say" and now he's saying "we want you to stay, but we don't want you you to exercise your democratic right to vote for the party of your choice, instead we want you to vote for one of the main Westminster parties."
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Cameron also seems to be saying that the SNP are not entitled to support Labour, although he has spent 5 years being supported by the LibDems. Also, the argument that a vote for Labour is a vote for the SNP, can be turned round. In some scenarios, a vote for the Tories gives the SNP the balance of power.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I think fundamentally, Cameron's premise is that no party that favours the union ought to dependent on a party that opposes it, since the union is something that most Tories hold dearest of all.
If the SNP just want to be left wing, that argument doesn't really hold water. Some of the press I've read since earlier on said that Salmonds tactic will just be to extract so many concessions that the union will fall apart in practice anyway - although quite how that happens, I don't know.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I just remembered that a number of journalists have been commenting recently that Cameron's tactics seem designed to break up the UK. However, it's more likely that he's desperate to win.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I think fundamentally, Cameron's premise is that no party that favours the union ought to dependent on a party that opposes it, since the union is something that most Tories hold dearest of all.
If the SNP just want to be left wing, that argument doesn't really hold water. Some of the press I've read since earlier on said that Salmonds tactic will just be to extract so many concessions that the union will fall apart in practice anyway - although quite how that happens, I don't know.
That's quite a clever argument; but it does suggest that some ideas cannot be represented in parliament, doesn't it? But I should think that Labour will be nervous about it, as if they form a minority govt, which collapses, the Tories will go very hard with 'Labour supports the breakup of the UK' in a second election, God forbid.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
For years, Scottish Labour could have had a roll of loft insulation elected as a Scottish MP. The Tories were unpopular, and the SNP lacked credibility.
Now that the SNP have been in power in Holyrood they have gained credibility, even amongst voters who aren't fussed about independence.
Labour are collapsing in Scotland because they were too complacent for too long.
I know some media are portraying the upsurge in SNP support as rising nationalism, but that is too simplistic. The SNP are picking up votes from people who want a left-of-centre party, and who are disillusioned with Scottish Labour.
Jim Murphy is seen as part of the Labour ethos which is being rejected. For example, his track record on claiming expenses has alienated many Labour voters. Labour would have been better off choosing someone younger / fresher / untainted by previous scandals as their new leader.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I think a lot of what happens after the election is going to be dependent on how desperate the main parties are to get back in, versus how much bare faced cheek and hypocrisy they are prepared to be charged with.
It could even be that Labour or Conservatives are going to be prepared to sit back and give the others a go at a minority government in the expectation that it would fold within six months and then they'll be able to get a majority next time.
That could then backfire if it didn't collapse, or if people found they liked the biggest party enough to give them a majority at the next election, instead of flipping back to the opposition.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I think a lot of what happens after the election is going to be dependent on how desperate the main parties are to get back in, versus how much bare faced cheek and hypocrisy they are prepared to be charged with.
It could even be that Labour or Conservatives are going to be prepared to sit back and give the others a go at a minority government in the expectation that it would fold within six months and then they'll be able to get a majority next time.
That could then backfire if it didn't collapse, or if people found they liked the biggest party enough to give them a majority at the next election, instead of flipping back to the opposition.
Yes, it's squeaky bum time, and probably also sleazy time, lies, more lies, manipulated statistics, and did I mention lies.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I hope that UKIP flop. But, realistically 2-3 seats might go that way. More significantly, the impact on Tory seats elsewhere will be interesting. If there are enough defectors to UKIP that may give a space for Labour or the Libdems to sneak in. If that happens in enough places where the LibDems currently hold the seat or where they were close second then UKIP may just save their bacon.
Also, UKIP gets a lot of support from disgruntled Labour voters. It will be interesting to see whether this affects results, esp. in the north.
I expect Douglas Carswell will hold his seat but wouldn't be surprised if he's the sole UKIP MP. I think we've reached peak UKIP.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm hoping for that fine line between UKIP crashing and UKIP doing well enough to win seats, so that they split the right-wing vote and neither they nor the Tories get elected.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm hoping for that fine line between UKIP crashing and UKIP doing well enough to win seats, so that they split the right-wing vote and neither they nor the Tories get elected.
Keep hoping...
I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that while UKIP is successful in the air war (with Farage popping up on television constantly) they fail at the ground war. Their party organisation is a joke and they don't have a well-organised activist base. Who from UKIP will knock up voters on polling day? Who, in fact, will have canvassed would-be UKIP voters in the first place?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Whatever they were formed for it seems that UKIP do not want to debate Europe. Their election poster, of escalators on the cliffs of Dover, means that the debate of membership of the EU is not going to be argued by the party whose name is all about that issue. Instead it is the old, old campaigning of the extremists, not about policies but scaring people into voting.
If they don't wish to debate the reason the party were formed, what are they scared of?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
I still think the likely outcomes are Con/Lib Dem or Lab / SNP / Plaid.
The former would be another coalition, the latter might be a less formal arrangement.
Most amusing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power between either Con /UKIP and Labour and the lefties.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Most amusing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power between either Con /UKIP and Labour and the lefties.
Most intriguing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power and Nick Clegg loses his seat.
Clearly, he'd have to resign his leadership, but would he do so immediately, leaving Malcolm Bruce in charge of coalition talks or would he try to steer the ship before walking the plank?
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I'm looking forward to seeing the Leaders' Debate on ITV this evening. I wonder how it'll go (and hope that Natalie Bennett manages to communicate her points effectively). I'm going to be out this evening, but I'm Sky+ing it, and planning to watch it tomorrow morning before I head out to work.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I don't think I'm going to watch it. Seven seems too many to allow points to be made well in the time available. I agree that it's very difficlut to discriminate as all those seven parties have a legitimate claim to be represented.
And for better or for worse, Farage is a very good publicist and will come across well. If the others all leave him alone, he'll be able to do his line, and if everyone else gangs up on him he'll sit there shouting about why they all want to do that.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Most amusing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power between either Con /UKIP and Labour and the lefties.
Most intriguing would be if the Lib Dems held the balance of power and Nick Clegg loses his seat.
Clearly, he'd have to resign his leadership, but would he do so immediately, leaving Malcolm Bruce in charge of coalition talks or would he try to steer the ship before walking the plank?
Malcolm Bruce isn't standing for re-election. He's 70, and AFAIK retiring. Unless I've missed something?
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Malcolm Bruce isn't standing for re-election. He's 70, and AFAIK retiring. Unless I've missed something?
Hadn't clocked that. I stand corrected.
I just looked up who was deputy leader of the Lib Dems. So they could end up with no leader and no deputy leader.
I'd be willing to bet Tim Farron will be leader in 6 months' time.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I said this somewhere else the other day, but the LibDems best hope for their long term survival is that whatever happens the day after doesn't involve them and they can sit the next five years out in opposition.
If they go in again with the Tories then people will question what the point of them is, but at least they've been good cop to the bad cop, if you like.
However, if they now go in with Labour, and have to spend the next 5 years as bad cop stopping the nice Labour party from buying all the good things the country wants then they really are in trouble.
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
I can't be dispassionate about this. I am terrified of another Tory government; not only for myself, but for all the disabled and unemployed people (and carers) I read on forums talking of suicide if the Tories get back in, and for what will happen to the NHS, and to my country in general.
Britain is already far more spiteful and less tolerant, and five more years of Tory austerity and scapegoating of anyone who suffers misfortune will make this country a hell to live in unless you have plenty of money (and even then, poor policing, poor NHS, and loss of safety nets will affect even the well off).
I think anyone who plans to ruin their ballot paper or vote for a party which has no hope of altering the present situation is making a mistake they will come to regret. I have no love of neoliberal Labour, but I will be voting Labour because they are the 'least worst' of any party that can do something, and I do believe they will save and protect the NHS, reverse the 'bedroom tax' and not subject the country to 12bn of benefits cuts. Hopefully they will do better than that, but no one else who can get in will do more. If Left Unity or the Greens could get in I would vote for one of them.
A 'rainbow coalition' that I hear some people talk about as a great opportunity seems highly unlikely to me. The most likely coalition I see forming is Tory/UKIP/LibDem, and then heaven help us.
If I believed in God I would be praying!
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
According to the Political Compass website's reckoning , Labour & LibDem aren't that much different in terms of their left-right positioning, and LibDem are noticeably more libertarian than authoritarian so LibDem in a Lab/Lib coalition might not end up being too much of the 'bad cop'.
Actually, I'm surprised, I would have thought of LibDem as mostly more left than Labour are now after the great Tony bLiar New Labour. Sure, there are probably some leftists left there, but the Party and its whip doesn't strike me as a voice for socialism.
I guess LibDem might have been analysed as more right than they were last election after this term of coalition.
I'm hoping the Greens might add to their one MP - and certainly hoping Caroline Lucas will retain her Brighton seat. Whatever else happens, it looks like this election might be an even clearer than in the past illustration of how First Past the Post is not a workable system in the UK now.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I can't see anyone forming a coalition with UKIP. They'll get about five seats at the most, and it must be easier to govern with five short of a majority than negotiate an agreement with UKIP.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
If Left Unity or the Greens could get in I would vote for one of them.
If everyone who said that did, there might be hope for change, and some sort of arrest in the right-wing slide of this country. This Guardian article has some good reasons to vote as you feel convicted, rather than to just go with cynical tactical 'least-worst' voting.
I'd agree with you, Greens (and Left Unity, although I know less about them) appear to me to be the only moral options. I'll be voting Green. Another article , sums some of the reasons why (and I need to get offline and go and do the things I should be doing on my day off now, so I'll use a quote from there!)
quote:
It isn’t just an emotive argument against tactical voting though. There are a number of pragmatic concerns especially relevant to the coming general election where a hung parliament looks the most likely result. Chief among these is the fact that national share of the vote is likely to be a significant consideration in deducing who has the legitimacy to form the next government, and indeed which policies should be adopted in the event of a coalition. More than this though, national share has a profound consequence for the long term future and rhetoric of all the national parties. For example, if the Green Party were to lose its Brighton seat it is quite conceivable that they could claim an upward trajectory based on an increased national vote share.
Now there will no doubt be those who cry foul of the electoral system we are stuck with in any consideration of tactical voting. On this it is important to note that a context of widespread tactical voting provides a shaky platform for reform of any kind.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Actually, I'm surprised, I would have thought of LibDem as mostly more left than Labour are now after the great Tony bLiar New Labour. Sure, there are probably some leftists left there, but the Party and its whip doesn't strike me as a voice for socialism.
I guess LibDem might have been analysed as more right than they were last election after this term of coalition.
It was always an alliance of liberals and lefties in the Lib Dems but that didn't seem to matter whilst they weren't in government. Polling after the coalition formed seemed to indicate a split as the left wing activists jumped ship, to Labour and Greens presumably. So they are probably more right wing now than they were previously.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Clegg lost his seat and Farron got the leadership. It would be interesting to know how that would then affect membership though.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Malcolm Bruce isn't standing for re-election. He's 70, and AFAIK retiring. Unless I've missed something?
Hadn't clocked that. I stand corrected.
I just looked up who was deputy leader of the Lib Dems. So they could end up with no leader and no deputy leader.
I'd be willing to bet Tim Farron will be leader in 6 months' time.
I expect Vince Cable to be a temporary leader then depending on whether they go into partnership he or Danny Alexander will be the de facto leader. If the party doesn't go into power to some extent then Tim Farron is likely to get the job (so long as he keeps his seat!).
On the subject of UKIP the best that could happen would be for some utter novices to get elected, then it would be obvious how useless they really are. That was often the situation with surprise by-election winners in the past.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Actually, I'm surprised, I would have thought of LibDem as mostly more left than Labour are now after the great Tony bLiar New Labour. Sure, there are probably some leftists left there, but the Party and its whip doesn't strike me as a voice for socialism.
I guess LibDem might have been analysed as more right than they were last election after this term of coalition.
It was always an alliance of liberals and lefties in the Lib Dems but that didn't seem to matter whilst they weren't in government. Polling after the coalition formed seemed to indicate a split as the left wing activists jumped ship, to Labour and Greens presumably. So they are probably more right wing now than they were previously.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Clegg lost his seat and Farron got the leadership. It would be interesting to know how that would then affect membership though.
I agree with this - they're left where they're the candidate for "Labour can't win here - keep the Tories out" candidate (usually in rural areas), and in the cities they're right where they stand as "the Tories can't win here - keep Labour out"
Basically, since 1987 they've ducked any attempt to form a coherent view of the world and when it comes down to it still function as "the Liberal Party and the SDP who've narrowly passed a vote to co-operate for the time being."
Going into coalition with the Tories caused a mass desertion of the members who'd voted for them as a protest at Labour becoming too right wing, and now (scrabbling madly for the poll from the other week and will add if I find it) they're in the position that the majority of LibDem MPs see another coalition with the Tories as their preferred outcome for the next Parliament over one with Labour...
What the membership think may well be another matter entirely - and given the way the federal party is structured it's very important - but the LibDems appeared to have drifted back to being what the post WW2 Labour party accused the Liberals of being; "Tories without their kicking boots"
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Give Teflon Dave his due, while he is not a good debater, and expect him to do as badly tonight as he did in the Paxo interview, he knows how to arrange things. He refused a 4 way debate because he knows that UKIP will take a larger bite out of the Tory vote than out of Labour, but the presence of the Greens and Celtic National parties will take votes from Labour. Giving them three times the air time than UKIP is a masterstroke. That is Dave at his best.
I can't see an effective Liberal balance of power thing this time. Too many Liberal supporters are disaffected and may desert to Labour or Green this time (I'm one of them) or not turn up. I expect the number of Liberal seats to be greatly reduced this time round, and I can't see them recovering for 15 years at least. Fewer seats means they will be less effective than in the present term, and I wouldn't call what they have done in the last 5 years as being in any way effective.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
If you go back to the pre-LibDem days of the 1970's the Liberal Party was even broader. On the right were small businessmen who felt that the Conservatives were dominated by corporate interests and The City and wouldn't have anything with trade union dominated Labour neither, while on the left were ex-Young Liberals, like Peter Hain, some of whom were anarcho-syndicalists. There was also a hefty enviromentalist lobby and enthusiasts for single issues like Site Value Rating. All they had in common was facial hair, but it was the seventies.
All that and just nine MPs, half of them for parts of Creamtealand.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Funny, I have a different impression of Teflon Dave, rather dim, but good at PR. He glides over inconsistencies and downright falsifications with aplomb, it's true, but I suppose then that Liar, thy name is Politician. If I think about it too much, I get scared.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
I expect Vince Cable to be a temporary leader then depending on whether they go into partnership he or Danny Alexander will be the de facto leader.
The latest Ashcroft poll shows Danny Alexander trailing behind the SNP candidate.
Drew Hendry, the SNP candidate, is currently leader of Highland Council and a credible candidate.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Some of these swings in Scotland are incredible; is that 25%? It's gonna be a fun night up there, as the results come in.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some of these swings in Scotland are incredible; is that 25%? It's gonna be a fun night up there, as the results come in.
Fun for some. There's going to be some job hunting afterwards and I almost feel sorry for Danny Boy who suffers the Curse of Osborne, having been the bearer of all the economic bad news for nearly five years.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some of these swings in Scotland are incredible; is that 25%? It's gonna be a fun night up there, as the results come in.
Yes, 25%. Personally, I'd be surprised if it was 25% on the day, but even a smaller swing would unseat Danny Alexander.
In this constituency it's not just the SNP "bounce" - Drew Hendry is a known name in local politics as a councillor and currently leader of Highland Council.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Merkel said recently that in a coalition, the smaller party usually ends up smashed; I suppose it's a kind of whipping boy syndrome.
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Actually, I'm surprised, I would have thought of LibDem as mostly more left than Labour are now after the great Tony bLiar New Labour. Sure, there are probably some leftists left there, but the Party and its whip doesn't strike me as a voice for socialism.
I guess LibDem might have been analysed as more right than they were last election after this term of coalition.
Ed Miliband is (IMO, of course) far to the left of most of the current Lib Dems. They have enabled the most foul government of my lifetime, even worse than Thatcher's, and I can't believe I ever voted tactically for them. I will never vote for them again. I hope Labour isn't forced into any alliance with them; I believe they would force Labour further to the right.
Miliband has distanced himself from the Blair years, if not completely (as I wish he would) from all its adherents. My sticking points with Labour are many, Rachel Reeves for one, but I still think they are our best hope in these awful times.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Funny, I have a different impression of Teflon Dave, rather dim, but good at PR. He glides over inconsistencies and downright falsifications with aplomb, it's true, but I suppose then that Liar, thy name is Politician. If I think about it too much, I get scared.
Dave isn't stupid but he has no idea what he wants power for and no settled political beliefs beyond a vague conception that the luckiest boys should have the jolliest time, tempered by an even vaguer sense of noblesse oblige.He gets away with it, partly because people assume that if you are PM you must be up to the job and partly because he gets good PR from the Beeb and the Press.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Actually, I'm surprised, I would have thought of LibDem as mostly more left than Labour are now after the great Tony bLiar New Labour. Sure, there are probably some leftists left there, but the Party and its whip doesn't strike me as a voice for socialism.
I guess LibDem might have been analysed as more right than they were last election after this term of coalition.
Ed Miliband is (IMO, of course) far to the left of most of the current Lib Dems. They have enabled the most foul government of my lifetime, even worse than Thatcher's, and I can't believe I ever voted tactically for them. I will never vote for them again. I hope Labour isn't forced into any alliance with them; I believe they would force Labour further to the right.
Miliband has distanced himself from the Blair years, if not completely (as I wish he would) from all its adherents. My sticking points with Labour are many, Rachel Reeves for one, but I still think they are our best hope in these awful times.
Well, Blair had the bright idea that the way to win elections was to copy the Tories; I suppose Labour are realizing that it's also the way to lose them. But it gives them a very blurred appearance, sort of dilute Thatcher, with a little bit of 'one nation' rhetoric, and a nod to UKIP. What a dog's breakfast.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Funny, I have a different impression of Teflon Dave, rather dim, but good at PR. He glides over inconsistencies and downright falsifications with aplomb, it's true, but I suppose then that Liar, thy name is Politician. If I think about it too much, I get scared.
Dave isn't stupid but he has no idea what he wants power for and no settled political beliefs beyond a vague conception that the luckiest boys should have the jolliest time, tempered by an even vaguer sense of noblesse oblige.He gets away with it, partly because people assume that if you are PM you must be up to the job and partly because he gets good PR from the Beeb and the Press.
Well, he sort of gets away with it, but if the Tories don't win this time, I think the knives will be out. One problem with portraying Miliband as a total dingbat, is if you don't beat him, what does that say about you?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Actually, I'm surprised, I would have thought of LibDem as mostly more left than Labour are now after the great Tony bLiar New Labour. Sure, there are probably some leftists left there, but the Party and its whip doesn't strike me as a voice for socialism.
I guess LibDem might have been analysed as more right than they were last election after this term of coalition.
Ed Miliband is (IMO, of course) far to the left of most of the current Lib Dems. They have enabled the most foul government of my lifetime, even worse than Thatcher's, and I can't believe I ever voted tactically for them. I will never vote for them again. I hope Labour isn't forced into any alliance with them; I believe they would force Labour further to the right.
Miliband has distanced himself from the Blair years, if not completely (as I wish he would) from all its adherents. My sticking points with Labour are many, Rachel Reeves for one, but I still think they are our best hope in these awful times.
Well, Blair had the bright idea that the way to win elections was to copy the Tories; I suppose Labour are realizing that it's also the way to lose them. But it gives them a very blurred appearance, sort of dilute Thatcher, with a little bit of 'one nation' rhetoric, and a nod to UKIP. What a dog's breakfast.
I am reminded of a line from Blake's 7. I said it was our best hope. I did not say that it was a good one.
Still, what are the alternatives? Two years arguing about Europe whilst George, Teresa and Boris go on manoeuvres? The Damn Libs? The Greens? Or the assorted nationalist parties (UKIP, the SNP, and Plaid) with their deep resentment of the English/ foreigners and their touching belief that if elected they will give everyone a massive money tree.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Very good line, that.
Well, I live in a safe Tory seat, so my vote is meaningless, except as somebody said, to add another to the popular non-Tory vote. Wow, that's really going to shake the foundations.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I suppose all sorts of things will be said if the Conservatives lose to Labour - not least, the Conservatives will say that Labour couldn't win a majority (assuming all the predictions are right), completely ignoring the fact that they haven't had one either for this government.
But if the loss is perceived to be because of vote splitting by UKIP, perhaps the European issue will become very hot for the Conservative Party again. Given the recent rise of UKIP, we've heard surprisingly little from the various Conservative party factions on Europe. Thinking back to the Major government in the 90s, they were obsessed with it.
It didn't really matter to Blair once Labour won, as they had a massive majority. I suspect that the Conservatives of all European flavours have just kept fairly quiet during the coalition government as they've thought that the grip on power was fairly slender, and perhaps also that they could rely on Clegg and the Lib Dems to be in favour of Europe and get the blame for any Euro related issues.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I should think that Tory MPs are lying low, waiting to see the result. If Labour are the biggest party, the shit may hit the Tory fan; another Tory coalition, well, bring in Boris; outright victory, Dave's a nice chap.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Debate 2: The women won.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...the assorted nationalist parties (UKIP, the SNP, and Plaid)...
Sorry, y'what now? How can you lump SNP and Plaid in with UKIP as though they are of a type? UKIP are right-wing authoritarians, while the others are among the grew true leftist voices we have left.
If you're going to make a collection with SNP & Plaid, it would be more likely to be the Green Party that would make sense to link them with. That would be a trilogy of left wing parties. It would also make more sense given that the Scottish Greens were on the Yes side in the referendum.
I'd be pleased if by some serendipitous happenstance a glitch in the fabric of likleyhood gave us a coalition incorporating the Greens (all the UK Green Parties), the SNP, Plaid, and Left Unity. That would feel like progress could be about to be made. I know, I know. The pig aerial display team would be working overtime and I should put my idealism away and go to bed. Still, it might be nice.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...the assorted nationalist parties (UKIP, the SNP, and Plaid)...
Sorry, y'what now? How can you lump SNP and Plaid in with UKIP as though they are of a type?
I was about to make much the same point. I'm not as familiar with PC, but the SNP and UKIP are about as far apart politically as you can get without including the real extremist fringe groups. The SNP favour open immigration, European Union membership, state funded healthcare and education, a decent welfare system for those who need it. On Europe and immigration UKIP clearly and emphatically stand on a different platform. I've not seen a detailed policy statement on health care (though I did see Farage make some comment about it being better to go private if you can afford it), education or welfare.
At present there isn't an English equivalent of the SNP or PC. English Nationalism is the realm of fascist thugs, and any SNP/PC equivalent party to be established in England will need to be careful to avoid that association or they'll never get anywhere. It's difficult to know what an English party would stand for, though they could stand against the influence of Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs on matters that are devolved to those nations, but that doesn't seem enough of a platform to form a party on.
I could see a greater opportunity for regional parties, standing to promote and protect the distinctive cultures and interests of (say) the SW of England, or Tyneside.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At present there isn't an English equivalent of the SNP or PC. English Nationalism is the realm of fascist thugs, and any SNP/PC equivalent party to be established in England will need to be careful to avoid that association or they'll never get anywhere. It's difficult to know what an English party would stand for, though they could stand against the influence of Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs on matters that are devolved to those nations, but that doesn't seem enough of a platform to form a party on.
I could see a greater opportunity for regional parties, standing to promote and protect the distinctive cultures and interests of (say) the SW of England, or Tyneside.
As one who was involved in the Liberal Party back in the pre LibDem days, the left of that party wasn't so far from Plaid Cymru in Wales, making seats like Ynys Mon (Anglesey) four-way marginals at times! In some seats it was moot whether it was worth standing, but that always depended on the Liberal and PC candidates. It got very close when the Liberal was a first-language Welsh speaker! I'm not so knowledgeable about Scotland.
It has always had regional strengths too, such as Creamtealand and, to a lesser extent, Lancashire.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
My point isn't about national parties having regional strongholds (I think all parties do, it's just that with a small number of seats a block of orange is more obvious than a block of blue or red). It's that there isn't a regional party (at least not with the level of support that would result in not losing their deposits, yes I know Google will come up with a range of parties).
There's no Creamtealand Party standing on a platform of upholding the interests of Creamtealanders from the dominance of the rest of England. Assuming more than two blokes in a shed consider that Creamtealand is dominated by the rest of England and the concerns of Creamtealanders are overlooked in national politics.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's no Creamtealand Party standing on a platform of upholding the interests of Creamtealanders from the dominance of the rest of England. Assuming more than two blokes in a shed consider that Creamtealand is dominated by the rest of England and the concerns of Creamtealanders are overlooked in national politics.
Part of it does of course have Mebyon Kernow
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I had to Google that.
Now, they might stand a chance of not losing their deposits. 4 county councillors, plus a host of representatives on town & parish councils. Plus a nice, clean and attractive website. If I was living there I would even look at their policies seriously.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's difficult to know what an English party would stand for, though they could stand against the influence of Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs on matters that are devolved to those nations, but that doesn't seem enough of a platform to form a party on.
That's the opposite of what the Celtic Nationals are saying, they do not like the Westminster centralised government. Taking them out of the equation on things like tax in an English votes for English people is a right wing idea which was mentioned by Teflon Dave after the Scottish referendum.
There is a feeling against this Westminster centered government in the regions too. What we want is a reduced Westminster influence, not more.
quote:
I could see a greater opportunity for regional parties, standing to promote and protect the distinctive cultures and interests of (say) the SW of England, or Tyneside.
Not this either, it would mean civil war for Yorkshire and the Humber, a vast rural county which is firmly blue on the political map, but with industrialised areas which support Labour. Which Yorkshire would dominate in this would upset the others. Leeds may be close to Harrogate, but they are vastly different places.
More power to the county councils would help. But they were abolished under Thatcher.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's difficult to know what an English party would stand for, though they could stand against the influence of Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs on matters that are devolved to those nations, but that doesn't seem enough of a platform to form a party on.
That's the opposite of what the Celtic Nationals are saying, they do not like the Westminster centralised government.
Yes, and maybe an English 'nationalist' (in the good sense of the word, rather than that thugs) party would also not like centralised Westminster government. Nothing wrong with a Westminster government that only covers issues that involve the whole UK, with national governments with control over the issues that only involve them.
The SNP (and probably PC, though as I've said I'm not as familiar with their positions) have always held the principal that their MPs would abstain from matters that did not concern Scotland. Though there's (currently) no requirement for them to do so - I don't expect any objection to a change of Parliamentary rules that actually rule them out of voting on such issues. Scottish Labour don't have a reputation of staying out of non-Scottish matters (voting for tuition fees south of the border being the most commonly paraded example), and it's possible that that is part of their collapse because the people of Scotland recognise the injustice in that as much as anyone else.
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on
:
I only caught the last fifteen minutes or so of the debate, but I'm finding the diverse views of the newspapers this morning interesting. The papers seem to be split down their traditional party lines, so the Telegraph thought Camercon did well, while the Guardian thought Milliband did better than expected. This seems to suggest that no one was an outright winner. I wonder how much difference it will make to how people vote?
Having said that I'd be voting PC or SNP if I could. As it is I hvae a dilemma. I live in a Lib Dem constituancy. Labour have no chance here, but a vote for them (or the Greens) will probably mean the Conservatives get in. The sitting MP keeps on sending me letters, he's obviously rather worried.
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The SNP (and probably PC, though as I've said I'm not as familiar with their positions) have always held the principal that their MPs would abstain from matters that did not concern Scotland. Though there's (currently) no requirement for them to do so - I don't expect any objection to a change of Parliamentary rules that actually rule them out of voting on such issues. Scottish Labour don't have a reputation of staying out of non-Scottish matters (voting for tuition fees south of the border being the most commonly paraded example), and it's possible that that is part of their collapse because the people of Scotland recognise the injustice in that as much as anyone else.
Although, Nicola Sturgeon more recently seems to be moving away from that particular line, in instances where there would be financial implications for Scotland (eg if the English NHS budget is reduced then there would be a corresponding reduction in the grant to Scotland): Observer article Feb 2015.
I don't think that Labour's collapse this side of the border is anything to do with a feeling that Scottish Labour MPs should have nothing to do with English matters. I think NEQ further up the thread nailed it - they have been too complacent for too long. As a result they have lost a lot of credibility, as well as losing (at the last Holyrood election) a lot of their bigger hitters, leaving comparatively few experienced or competent representatives. I think it's hard for people not living here to appreciate just how much of a shambles Labour are up here currently, and how little of a credible opposition they are providing. It has meant that the SNP (who not so long ago were being painted as the Tartan Tories) have been able to claim the centre-left and further-left ground with remarkably little resistance. I for one would love to see a credible Labour and other left-wing opposition as I do think that there are elements of SNP policy which need more robust scrutiny than they are getting at the moment (I am saying that as a former Labour and now probable SNP voter). That lack of scrutiny is less to do with the SNP majority in Holyrood and almost everything to do with Scottish Labour in particular being such a shambles, IMO.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Debate 2: The women won.
I agree with that; I thought Nicola very impressive, and the men were like stuffed shirts, with the exception of Farage, who is quite relaxed, but talks like a troll. I can't stand Clegg.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
Nicola Sturgeon more recently seems to be moving away from that particular line, in instances where there would be financial implications for Scotland (eg if the English NHS budget is reduced then there would be a corresponding reduction in the grant to Scotland): Observer article Feb 2015.
But, if something passed in Westminster will result in a reduction to the grant to Scotland then, by definition, it isn't an entirely non-Scottish matter. The line between UK and UK-except-Scotland isn't necessarily that clear. Another blurry line is when Scottish Labour MPs start to approach the "panda line" if an understanding between the SNP and Labour return a minority Labour government in Westminster, on the grounds that a Labour government is better for Scotland than a Tory one.
quote:
I don't think that Labour's collapse this side of the border is anything to do with a feeling that Scottish Labour MPs should have nothing to do with English matters. I think NEQ further up the thread nailed it - they have been too complacent for too long. As a result they have lost a lot of credibility ... I think it's hard for people not living here to appreciate just how much of a shambles Labour are up here currently, and how little of a credible opposition they are providing.
The Labour collapse has a lot of factors. I still think one of them is that during the referendum campaign (especially in the last few weeks) the question of Scottish MPs voting on matters with very little Scottish interest was a major discussion point. In the course of that we were reminded of Scottish Labour support for non-Scottish university tuition fees, which most people recognise as being not cricket. This example of towing the line from the London offices was then quickly followed with the "branch office" comments in the resignation of Johann Lamont (who was a popular leader, her loss was another contribution to the general shambles) created an impression that Scottish Labour MPs were more interested in supporting the London Party Line than fighting for Scotland.
It's a shambles almost entirely of their own making. And, you're right that the loss of a credible opposition in Holyrood weakens Scottish democracy. We need someone competent to scrutinise legislation, and strong enough to filter out the crap. The Opposition should be like a referee for a scientific paper (guess who has another paper to review on their desk?) offering a thoughtful and fair criticism of the paper (proposed legislation) and sending it back to the editor (house) with appropriate recommendation (don't publish/major corrections/ minor corrections - I personally consider the 'no corrections' option to be one that a referee should never use because any paper can be better). The aim is to get the best possible legislation, and the perspective of opposition parties is an essential part of that process.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:
I only caught the last fifteen minutes or so of the debate, but I'm finding the diverse views of the newspapers this morning interesting. The papers seem to be split down their traditional party lines, so the Telegraph thought Camercon did well, while the Guardian thought Milliband did better than expected. This seems to suggest that no one was an outright winner....
I'm cynical enough to believe that most of the papers' copy was written before the debate, apart from plug-in bits like "<insert opportunistic quote here>".
Where do we start the campaign to have Nicola Sturgeon as Prime Minister?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Some of us already do ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
OK, we use 'first' rather than 'prime'
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on
:
For the Scots nats there's a delightful irony emerging. The political destinies of the parties that campaigned for the Union is now in the hands of a nationalist party.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm cynical enough to believe that most of the papers' copy was written before the debate, apart from plug-in bits like "<insert opportunistic quote here>".
Where do we start the campaign to have Nicola Sturgeon as Prime Minister?
The guardian live feed, explicitly recognised it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
...Although, Nicola Sturgeon more recently seems to be moving away from that particular line, in instances where there would be financial implications for Scotland (eg if the English NHS budget is reduced then there would be a corresponding reduction in the grant to Scotland): Observer article Feb 2015. ...
That's an interestingly different take from how it appears down here.
It's been generally assumed here that the SNP's giving up its self-denying ordinance on voting on England only matters is so that it can sell its support to the highest bidder in a hung Parliament. The argument about alleged possible effects of the English NHS budget allocations on Scottish finance has generally been assumed to be a flimsy and transparent ex post facto hypocritical rationalisation.
Changing the subject, I thought yesterday's televised debate was quite interesting, but unless you're Welsh or Scottish, there was nothing in it that might persuade you to vote differently from how you might otherwise.
Although even if I were in Wales, I probably wouldn't vote Plaid, I thought Leanne Wood stuck up for her corner rather well. Nicola Sturgeon might be quite persuasive if one were in Scotland, but she has nothing to offer us here and we were completely disenfranchised in the constitutional referendum in the autumn.
As for the statement "it was the women wot won", though, I thought Natalie Bennett was dreadful - dogmatic and only persuasive for those who have already been persuaded. She didn't even strike me as particularly bright.
But as I said, the debate is not likely to change the way many people vote. Before yesterday evening, I was unlikely to have voted Green, and it's even less likely now.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I agree with Enoch's points - that's what I was thinking. Leanne Woods was too focused on Wales to be relevant to anywhere else, Nicola Sturgeon made some good points but again is Scotland-focused, and what's with the erratic head movements? Nick Clegg came out of it surprisingly well - better than I expected. He came across as sincere, passionate and worth listening to. I enjoyed him trying to get Miliband to apologize for personally wrecking the economy.
Farage was his usual amusing self, clearly unscripted and not prepared. Cameron gave an understated performance, but of all of seven, he was the only one who came across as convincing in the part of prime minister. It was impossible to visualize any of the others jetting off to high-level policy discussions with heads of state or trying to sort out what to do about Islamic militants or Putin.
The Labour Party has the wrong Miliband at the top. David would have been a force to be reckoned with and a serious contender for the post of Prime Minister, Ed is lightweight and comes across as potentially out of his depth with the kinds of problems a prime minister has to face on a day to day basis. He doesn't have warmth or charisma, just ambition.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It just shows how subjective it is: I found Cameron and Clegg hideous, Farage grotesque with his talk of HIV, I liked the 3 women, and I thought Miliband looked overtrained. Nothing new really.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Also, the Worm was very distracting. And it was taken too seriously: it represents the views of 50 floating voters, it can't be said to be representative of anything else.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
... Farage was his usual amusing self, clearly unscripted and not prepared. ...
Exactly. A buffoon and a dangerous one. It might have appealed to those who already like that sort of thing. I suspect that it also confirmed the many of us that detest the man that we still do.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
.. Cameron gave an understated performance, but of all of seven, he was the only one who came across as convincing in the part of prime minister. It was impossible to visualize any of the others jetting off to high-level policy discussions with heads of state or trying to sort out what to do about Islamic militants or Putin....
I've never understood this perception- very widespread- that Cameron is somehow 'prime ministerial'. To me he's so obviously a bluffer and a waffler and- when under pressure- a blusterer.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@Enoch wrote
Changing the subject, I thought yesterday's televised debate was quite interesting, but unless you're Welsh or Scottish, there was nothing in it that might persuade you to vote differently from how you might otherwise.
You'd have thought so, but I was seeing a report from an English marginal - Lincoln - where one of the punters was thinking of tactically voting Labour as a way of giving the SNP a stronger voice in Westminster. I was talking to someone in my own English marginal who's planning a vote swap with an English mate currently living and eligible to vote in Scotland. He'll ask his Scottish pal to vote SNP, and in return will cast his own vote in England however his mate chooses.
Might start a trend
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
.. Cameron gave an understated performance, but of all of seven, he was the only one who came across as convincing in the part of prime minister. It was impossible to visualize any of the others jetting off to high-level policy discussions with heads of state or trying to sort out what to do about Islamic militants or Putin....
I've never understood this perception- very widespread- that Cameron is somehow 'prime ministerial'. To me he's so obviously a bluffer and a waffler and- when under pressure- a blusterer.
Cameron has the advantage of having been briefed in the role for five years. I'm sure the permanent civil servants in his office have spotted his vices and virtues and instructed him to work in a particular way. He'd have to be a total tool to ignore this advice when it comes to the election campaign.
His main problem is to ensure the Conservatives don't disproportionately lose votes to UKIP.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I thought the three leaders of Green, Plaid & SNP showed up the red, blue & yellow stuffed-shirts in the Leaders' Debate - and Nicola Sturgeon in particular outclassed the rest, and I've seen quite a few people from outside Scotland wishing they could vote for her. If I was back up in Scotland, I might well have shifted my likely vote from Green to SNP.
On a lighter note, there's an entertaining but quite true (IMHO) summary of the Debate on Commonspace
Flipping back to serious - Farage, fuckin'ell - he's a despicable xenophobic troll, isn't he? How could anyone watch that and even contemplate voting for his detestable mob of prejudice-farmers?
The Commonspace article I linked to above had a lovely litle sentence about him;
quote:
With his eyes bulging, presumably to get as far away from his mind as possible, Farage came across as exactly what he is. A dangerous bigot appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
On a lighter note, there's an entertaining but quite true (IMHO) summary of the Debate on Commonspace
Flipping back to serious - Farage, fuckin'ell - he's a despicable xenophobic troll, isn't he? How could anyone watch that and even contemplate voting for his detestable mob of prejudice-farmers?
The Commonspace article I linked to above had a lovely litle sentence about him;
quote:
With his eyes bulging, presumably to get as far away from his mind as possible, Farage came across as exactly what he is. A dangerous bigot appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Don't underestimate the extent of bigotry and particularly xenophobia in the UK.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Flipping back to serious - Farage, fuckin'ell - he's a despicable xenophobic troll, isn't he? How could anyone watch that and even contemplate voting for his detestable mob of prejudice-farmers?
Because there is a group of the permanently pissed off in the UK, who believe the world would be better if only people were told to sit up and behave.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Tactically, Cameron has probably won the round of TV debates by ensuring they were staged early, and will rapidly slide into "old news" territory. His performance was pretty irrelevant, though I suspect the Paxo Food Bank stuffing may linger for a while in people's memories. I hope so, anyway.
I think Nicola Sturgeon will have increased support for the SNP and I suspect this horse that won't run will cause further harm to Labour in Scotland if they try to ride it.
Farage's unsavoury remarks must have been designed to shore up his core vote. The appearance of unscriptedness is pretty calculated (and rehearsed I guess), but he was probably not expecting to get shot down by a Welsh woman. I enjoyed that.
It will be a hung Parliament, but will it hang to the Left or the Right?
[ 04. April 2015, 08:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think that's right. The Tories will have calculated that even if Labour get a bounce from the debates, it will fade. The right-wing machine haven't really got going yet with their personal attacks on Miliband - expect further nastiness in the tabloids. Whether they have calculated correctly, who knows, one can only hope not, for the sake of the poor and disabled.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
.. Cameron gave an understated performance, but of all of seven, he was the only one who came across as convincing in the part of prime minister. It was impossible to visualize any of the others jetting off to high-level policy discussions with heads of state or trying to sort out what to do about Islamic militants or Putin....
I've never understood this perception- very widespread- that Cameron is somehow 'prime ministerial'. To me he's so obviously a bluffer and a waffler and- when under pressure- a blusterer.
I'm young enough that my only real points of comparison are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
To my mind, irrespective of my feelings about Conservative policies as a whole, Cameron does have the advantage over both of them in that, unlike Blair, he doesn't think he's the Messiah, and, unlike Brown, he's not paranoid of anyone in his own party who has ideas and talents of their own. I suspect both are a direct consequence of his lack of convictions.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that's right. The Tories will have calculated that even if Labour get a bounce from the debates, it will fade. The right-wing machine haven't really got going yet with their personal attacks on Miliband - expect further nastiness in the tabloids. Whether they have calculated correctly, who knows, one can only hope not, for the sake of the poor and disabled.
On t'other hand, the debates helped show that if you give Ed more than five mins talk time he looks less like a dawk, and more credible as a politician. He's got a bit of momentum now, has aired a lot of arguments (so will be getting good intelligence on what's playing well with the voters) and has got people starting to say maybe he ain't an extra from a plasticine movie company after all.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by quetzalcoatl quote:
The right-wing machine haven't really got going yet with their personal attacks on Miliband - expect further nastiness in the tabloids. Whether they have calculated correctly, who knows, one can only hope not, for the sake of the poor and disabled.
In fact looking at the past ten years, the worst, most despicable, personal attacks and smears have all come from Labour and were, primarily, aimed not at the politician but at the politician's spouse.
Don't believe me? Look at Damian McBride and his antics vis-a-vis Samantha Cameron, Frances Osborne; and if that's not enough, look at his smearing of Charles Clarke and Cherie Blair.
Ed Miliband has never satisfactorily explained what he knew about Mr McBride and his activities: bearing in mind Damian McB was Gordon Brown's closest aide and Miliband was Gordon's protege it isn't credible that Miliband knew nothing.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't believe me? Look at Damian McBride and his antics vis-a-vis Samantha Cameron, Frances Osborne; and if that's not enough, look at his smearing of Charles Clarke and Cherie Blair.
Ed Miliband has never satisfactorily explained what he knew about Mr McBride and his activities: bearing in mind Damian McB was Gordon Brown's closest aide and Miliband was Gordon's protege it isn't credible that Miliband knew nothing.
One rotten apple doesn't condemn the entire barrel, but Charles Clarke was quite probably the worst Home Secretary in the modern era. Not a nice man at all.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Charles Clarke was quite probably the worst Home Secretary in the modern era. Not a nice man at all.
But he was brilliant in education and a champion for RE
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Charles Clarke was quite probably the worst Home Secretary in the modern era. Not a nice man at all.
But he was brilliant in education and a champion for RE
Probably a reflection on the permanent people at Education and the Home Office respectively. It was under Clarke that momentum grew for ID cards and we must not forget what a fiasco that was.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
.. Cameron gave an understated performance, but of all of seven, he was the only one who came across as convincing in the part of prime minister. It was impossible to visualize any of the others jetting off to high-level policy discussions with heads of state or trying to sort out what to do about Islamic militants or Putin....
I've never understood this perception- very widespread- that Cameron is somehow 'prime ministerial'. To me he's so obviously a bluffer and a waffler and- when under pressure- a blusterer.
Anthony Wells, who works for YouGov and owns ukpollingreport says that, according to the polls, people who are Prime Minister always look more prime ministerial than people who are not Prime Minister, ie, it is always easier to look what you already are.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
On t'other hand, the debates helped show that if you give Ed more than five mins talk time he looks less like a dawk, and more credible as a politician.
He doesn't come across as potential leader material to me. He seems cold, hard and ambitious, still lightweight and still a bit unsure of himself. Perhaps if he was older he might do better.
Cameron, OTOH, had come across as capable and confident before he was elected. Tony Blair never looked prime ministerial and neither did Gordon Brown (or John Major). Some do, some don't.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Really, the guy who lost the 2010 debate? I think he did better this time.
It was close between Red Ed and Teflon Dave in this debate. Though (and it shames me to say this) I agree with the Daily Mail . Nicola Sturgeon won.
I disagree with the Mail that Sturgeon is dangerous for Britain. I think I want Sturgeon's Britain.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Cameron, OTOH, had come across as capable and confident before he was elected.
I still maintain that this is the "Old Etonian" effect. Such people often seem casual and comfortable with positions of leadership, as if it is their "birthright". I tend to think that this is one of the reasons why Justin Welby was so easily "promoted" to be Archbishop of Canterbury. It is still (sadly) the case in England that people who have been to the "right" schools and who project an aura of confident authority are instinctively (even irrationally) preferred.
I know I have made this point before, but I think it is worth repeating. There are great similarities between Cameron and Welby. Both have that "Old Etonian" aura; both have a tendency to speak smoothing generalities which sound good, but which don't actually bear a lot of analysis; both found themselves being placed in positions of leadership without ever having to really prove themselves.
(NB: I am not saying that Welby had done nothing - simply that his actual achievements as priest and bishop were not that different from any other bishop. He was not appointed on what he had done, so much as on what was felt to be some rather ill-defined "potential".)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Ed Miliband has never satisfactorily explained what he knew about Mr McBride and his activities: bearing in mind Damian McB was Gordon Brown's closest aide and Miliband was Gordon's protege it isn't credible that Miliband knew nothing.
Given that that there is no evidence Brown knw what McBride was up to I don't see why Miliband would necessarily know.
.. and given Cameron's antics with Coulson et al. pardon me if I relegate such matters to be very much of secondary importance.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Really, the guy who lost the 2010 debate? I think he did better this time.
It was close between Red Ed and Teflon Dave in this debate. Though (and it shames me to say this) I agree with the Daily Mail . Nicola Sturgeon won.
I disagree with the Mail that Sturgeon is dangerous for Britain. I think I want Sturgeon's Britain.
The opposition to Cameron are very different now. Brown was a heavyweight with no charisma while Miliband is a lightweight with no charisma. The Nick Clegg then and now are utterly different as a consequence of the coalition while the other four, UKIP apart, are a distraction.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I disagree with the Mail that Sturgeon is dangerous for Britain. I think I want Sturgeon's Britain.
The more I think about it, the more I think that a successful SNP is not that much of a problem for Labour. The downside is that they will get their asses kicked in Scotland and won't get an absolute majority. The upside is that there is no chance on earth that the SNP will ally itself with the Tories. You could make the case for Labour to refocus itself more directly on being an English party, addressing specifically English themes, allowing the SNP to take on the Tories north of the border.
There would always have to be some sort of alliance or coalition between the two parties, but sensible negotiation could deal with that as the two parties do share a lot in common (far more than the Tories share with the Lib Dems).
It could also be presented as a "new" way for the UK to work together - England and Scotland in a mature, mutually beneficial, partnership, The Welsh and the Northern Irish would then need to be brought into the scheme of things.
Let's face it. At the moment, the Tories don't really have to campaign hard in Scotland. They know they won't get much return, so they can focus resources more on England. Labour is trying to fight two very different battles in Scotland AND England.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... but Charles Clarke was quite probably the worst Home Secretary in the modern era. Not a nice man at all.
No he wasn't but are you sure he was the worst. There's some pretty stiff competition for that slot. I need only mention (working backwards) Jacqui Smith, John Reid, Michael Howard (he of the night), Reginald Maudling and Henry Brooke. Sir William Joynson-Hicks is another ferocious competitor for that slot, but he probably doesn't count as 'modern era' any more.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
You forgot Blunkett.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I agree there is stiff competition but Clarke presided over a couple of substantial blunders in a short period. All since the mid-eighties have all had their knuckles rapped by our judges when trying to abridge human rights legislation.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...the assorted nationalist parties (UKIP, the SNP, and Plaid)...
Sorry, y'what now? How can you lump SNP and Plaid in with UKIP as though they are of a type?
I was about to make much the same point. I'm not as familiar with PC, but the SNP and UKIP are about as far apart politically as you can get without including the real extremist fringe groups. The SNP favour open immigration, European Union membership, state funded healthcare and education, a decent welfare system for those who need it. On Europe and immigration UKIP clearly and emphatically stand on a different platform. I've not seen a detailed policy statement on health care (though I did see Farage make some comment about it being better to go private if you can afford it), education or welfare.
At present there isn't an English equivalent of the SNP or PC. English Nationalism is the realm of fascist thugs, and any SNP/PC equivalent party to be established in England will need to be careful to avoid that association or they'll never get anywhere. It's difficult to know what an English party would stand for, though they could stand against the influence of Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs on matters that are devolved to those nations, but that doesn't seem enough of a platform to form a party on.
I could see a greater opportunity for regional parties, standing to promote and protect the distinctive cultures and interests of (say) the SW of England, or Tyneside.
Well, there is part of me that would totally support a 'Dumnonia Arise' movement, if only we could find a legitimate scion of the House of Pendragon to lead it. But, boringly, I don't think that the interests of people living in council estates in Exeter are that different to the interests of people living in similar conditions in Glasgow or London. (Also I now live in Sussex.) This is the thing. To a proper socialist, or social democrat or liberal or conservative what matters is the functioning of the economic system and who it benefits. To a nationalist all of this is subordinate to the question of the welfare of the nation. To a nationalist the interests of the working person in Hackney is the same as the interest of the Duke of Westminster and the interest of the working man in Glasgow is the same as the Duke of Buccelech. Which is why the economic policies of nationalist parties are essentially fluid. Once upon a time the SNP was a party of the centre right - the Tartan Tories - who changed their mind when opposition to Thatcherism became popular in Scotland. Prior to devolution, their main contribution to the history of the UK was voting for the motion of no confidence in Jim Callaghan which led to Mrs Thatcher's first election victory. They are currently led by a woman whom, it appears, would prefer Mr Cameron to Mr Miliband as Prime Minister. UKIP are the continuation of Enoch Powell by other means who, famously, urged a vote for the Labour Party in the 1974 General Election on the grounds they supported a referendum on the Common Market. In the South East they are Thatcherites, in the north of England they pitch their appeal to Old Labourites who feel left behind by globalisation. If the SNP were a principled socialist, or social democratic party, they would prefer a Labour government which would strengthen the union to Cameron who is, frankly, indifferent to its survival and if UKIP were a principled party of the free market they would not be tacking left oop north. But the thing is the enemy - as far as the SNP is concerned - is the union with England and - as far as UKIP is concerned - is the EU. If, say, the option was a Conservative led government led by Mr Ken Clarke and a Labour government led by the late Mr Michael Foot UKIP would opt for the latter and, frankly, given a choice between a Labour party led by, say, the late Mr. Robin Cook and the current shower the SNP would opt for Mr Cameron every time. It's not a coincidence that Mr Farage and Mr Salmond are both admirers of Mr Putin. The point is that economics is, rather than being the fundamental question, is camouflage. If they thought they could achieve their aims by embracing Marx, Ayn Rand or Yogic Flying they would do without too much hesitation. But the thing is for an internationalist social justice is about structures - are our markets too free or not free enough. For a nationalist it is about outsiders - Westminster and Brussels are conspiring against us.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
They are currently led by a woman whom, it appears, would prefer Mr Cameron to Mr Miliband as Prime Minister.
This is sloppy journalism by the Daily Telegraph, who didn't check their story with either of the people named.
Sturgeon has denied it.
The French Consul General has denied it (scroll down)
The Foreign Office are denying knowledge.
It now appears that this memo came from the Scottish Office, not the Foreign Office and was written by an unnamed civil servant based on a phone call to the French consulate. The memo writer wasn't present at the actual meeting, and has managed to produce a memo which is contrary to what all the people who were at the meeting recall.
[ 05. April 2015, 20:31: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
It's a pretty pathetic attempt at a smear. Nicola Sturgeon has little to worry about if that is the best her opponents can do.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Callan, you have now repeated the slander that Alex Salmond is a devotee of Putin multiple times on the boards. He was asked in an interview by Alistair Campbell to run through the strengths and weaknesses of a gamut of politicians (prior to Putin going rogue in Crimea, though it was published after) and after saying both what was good and bad about a number of people that Campbell enquired about, made clear that his ultimate hero was Nelson Mandela. He specifically condemned Putin's human rights abuses. Your posts lose all credibility when you keep repeating this smear which relies on decontextualisation and people not having read the original interview.
[ 06. April 2015, 01:54: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It's a pretty pathetic attempt at a smear. Nicola Sturgeon has little to worry about if that is the best her opponents can do.
It is a pathetic attempt at a smear. But it's now been on the front pages of the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror, so it has become widespread.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The problem with smears is that no matter how often the facts are presented, showing that the alleged comments have been fabricated or taken totally out of context, they get repeated and people continue to believe them just because they're so often repeated. We've just had a demonstration of an intelligent person taken in by gross mis-reporting of comments made by Alex Salmond regarding Putin.
It's a really shitty way to do politics. And, in the midst of the last few weeks before an election those so smeared are not going to waste their time pursuing the scum reporters who repeat these lies in print through the courts, and even if they did the election will be done and dusted by the time the court has ruled.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I suspect right wing press doublethink. Continuing the slur will annoy Scots voters, strengthening the possibility of lots of Labour losses in Scotland. The more seats the SNP win in Scotland, the more likely it is that the Tories will win more seats than Labour overall.
If you don't want Labour to get in power, annoy the Scots? In right wing media strategy terms, that might make a strange kind of sense.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Callan, you have now repeated the slander that Alex Salmond is a devotee of Putin multiple times on the boards. He was asked in an interview by Alistair Campbell to run through the strengths and weaknesses of a gamut of politicians (prior to Putin going rogue in Crimea, though it was published after) and after saying both what was good and bad about a number of people that Campbell enquired about, made clear that his ultimate hero was Nelson Mandela. He specifically condemned Putin's human rights abuses. Your posts lose all credibility when you keep repeating this smear which relies on decontextualisation and people not having read the original interview.
First of all, I think that you will find that it is a libel rather than a slander as it is written, not spoken, and i assume that you are posting as a shipmate rather than a host. In which case can I point out that libel has a specific meaning in UK law which doesn't equate to "an opinion or fact which a Scottish Nationalist finds inconvenient". Just to make sure that we are clear about this.
When I was a student I was quite involved with Amnesty International and, in the late eighties, two of the regimes we were concerned with were South Africa and the Pinochet regime in Chile. I was a student at the London School of Economics and there was something called the Shaw Library with comfy chairs and classical music and all the newspapers you could read, and then some, and I am amazed looking back at it that any of us managed to attain academic qualifications. There is a point to this trip down memory lane, bear with me. Now the thing is it seemed obvious to me that the regimes in question were indefensible and it was equally obvious that the UK government were quite keen on said regimes. So I read a lot of Op-Ed's in the Telegraph and Times and whatnot which put forward the point of view of Brother Boer and Uncle Augusto trying to work out what was going on.
What struck me was that hardly ever did anyone state baldly that they thought treating black people as second class citizens was a good thing or that trade unionists and human rights activists were scum and their rape and torture was exactly what they deserved. The articles would always contain a paragraph which would mournfully lament the failures of the regime to conform to international norms before pointing out that the economic dynamism or strategic role in the struggle against international communism meant that we ought to cut them some slack and, indeed, admire P.W. Botha and General Pinochet as statesmen and patriots. Of course, it would not be difficult to find apologias for left wing tyrannies couched, mutates mutants, in similar terms. And, of course, the genre is alive and well today. Here is a classic example of the genre.
Whilst I would not admire anyone who managed to get from the late eighties until now without some revision of their political views, I thought then and I think now that this is essentially bullshit. If a regime is predicated on murder, torture and oppression it is not a defence to point up its achievements in the realm of pension reform or its comparative economic successes or even its strategic role in the defence of the west. No-one says this of an unpleasant authoritarian government after the fact. Mussolini's comparative success in ensuring the punctuality of the 9.45 between Florence and Rimini might have been couched in his defence when he was a thing, as the young people say, but no-one says it now. Even the liberation of Auschwitz hasn't been enough to uphold Stalin's reputation.
So when someone tells me that they admire "certain aspects" of Putin's regime in restoring "a substantial amount of Russian pride" whilst deploring " aspects of Russian constitutionality and the intermesh with business and politics" which is a euphemism, I think, for whacking people who disagreed with the government, brutally suppressing the separatist movement in Chechnya (oh, the fucking irony) and running the regime primarily for the benefit of a bunch of corrupt oligarchs then I say bullshit, just as I did when I was assured by those clever, clever right wing columnists that P.W and Augusto had a point, you know. It's not like the Lib. Dem. manifesto where you might be all "Oh, on the one hand I support P.R. but on the other hand I'm not sure I support further European integration". The whole Russian pride thing is integrally tied up with the gangsterism of the regime. The idea that a bit of throat clearing makes that all right is frankly nonsensical. It's a regime predicated on torture, murdrer and oppression. The idea that, in that context, there can be good bits is ludicrous. Like trading off the Cuban health service against the Cuban secret police or Franco's mass murder against Franco's anti-communism. It's what Andrew Roberts, in a discussion of the political vagaries of the late Sir Arthur Bryant, described as the "it wouldn't do for us, but they seem to like it" school of politics.
Incidentally, Salmond's remarks were endorsed by the Russian government and condemned by Amnesty International. I know whom I trust out of the two. Oh, and the idea that Putin only went rogue after Salmond's remarks is utterly disingenuous. Russian troops were massing on the Ukranian border at the time, even if they only crossed it by the time that GQ hit the newsagents.
And, just for the record, I append the offending interview. People can make of it what they will. My own view is that a proper democrat, asked it they admired Putin, would have said something like "it's pretty hard to admire the murderer of Anna Politkovskaya".
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If you don't want Labour to get in power, annoy the Scots? In right wing media strategy terms, that might make a strange kind of sense.
I think there's nothing strange about it. Right-wing parties might win as much as 1 seat in Scotland, but no more.
However if Labour holds its Scottish seats and holds or wins the number of seats projected elsewhere then they can form a majority government. But if it loses all those seats to the SNP, David Cameron gets first dibs on forming a government, even if it is a minority.
By the way, do I correctly observe a massive change of approach by the SNP now Nicola Sturgeon has replaced Alex Salmond? Sturgeon wants reform at Westminster and states the is on the side of all those outside Scotland who want the same. She is prepared to support a Labour government on a vote-by-vote basis, implying support beyond Scotland-only matters. I think it's great. To me it makes a big change from Alex Salmond's approach. I found him supercilious and duplictous, and given imposing tactical blame on Westminster at every turn. Presumably most SNP members, including their leaders, still want independence. I suspect that if Salmond were calling the shots, the SNP would be planning a somewhat more sabotage-oriented ("hold them to the fire") approach at Westminster.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The change is simple to explain. Salmond was always looking to an independence referendum. That's no longer on the radar for the foreseeable future. Therefore Scotland has to exist within the UK, and that means to get the best for Scotland the SNP needs to deal with Westmonster. Alex had it easy, just keep pointing out how dangerous the beast by the Thames was, and how better off we'd be putting political distance between us. Nicola has to go down there and woo the beast, and she does seem to be off to a good start.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
I was involved with Amnesty as a student too and I know the difference between governments which underhandedly supported Botha and Pinochet, even with arms deals, and monstering somebody who brought in same-sex marriage (and was vocally in favour of it), opposed the war with Iraq, opposed Trident, spoke up for increasing immigration in the face of racists, (and who was equally praised by Amnesty for bringing up China's human rights abuses while in China), because he tried to be diplomatic in his words to Alistair Campbell at a time when frantic efforts were going on with EU foreign ministers and with John Kerry to avert war, and it backfired badly on him because by the time the article actually came out, things had moved from diplomacy to outright war. The demonisation over this only works if you ignore practically everything else the man has done and said in seven years of government to take a few of those words out of context.
By the way, the primary meaning of slander is simply
quote:
The utterance or dissemination of false statements or reports concerning a person, or malicious misrepresentation of his actions, in order to defame or injure him; calumny, defamation - Oxford English Dictionary
[ 07. April 2015, 01:06: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Most people, when asked "what do you think about person X" would tend to appear to be fair and say something positive. To simply point out all their faults seems rude, and where there are various diplomats trying their hardest to avoid war potentially unhelpful.
To be asked that question about Putin and the best you can say about him is "well, he's restored some pride in the Russian people" is pretty piss poor. You mean, he couldn't even get the trains running on time?
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I thought Salmond's answers throughout that interview were smarmy, and his comments on Putin very odd at best.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The change is simple to explain. Salmond was always looking to an independence referendum. That's no longer on the radar for the foreseeable future. Therefore Scotland has to exist within the UK, and that means to get the best for Scotland the SNP needs to deal with Westmonster. Alex had it easy, just keep pointing out how dangerous the beast by the Thames was, and how better off we'd be putting political distance between us. Nicola has to go down there and woo the beast, and she does seem to be off to a good start.
It occurs to me that she might be playing the long game. However, it also occurs to me that she knows she could lose much support by dogmatically insisting on another referendum in short order, and attempting to gain popular support by stoking up resentment. I think that is what Alex Salmond would want to do. I'm so glad he isn't in charge any more!
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Presumably most SNP members, including their leaders, still want independence.
I think it's fair to say that most SNP leaders want independence, and that most members want, at a minimum, increased devolution. However, I think that there is a sizeable group of SNP voters who simply want a left-of centre party. These are voters who started to feel disillusioned with Labour when it became "New Labour" but continued to vote Labour in the absence of a credible alternative. The SNP now looks like a credible alternative.
When the referendum was first mooted, I don't think there was much popular support for full Independence. Had there been a three question vote (No, Fiscal Autonomy, Yes) the middle option would have won overwhelmingly. Perhaps 20% at most of those voting would have voted for Independence.
The middle ground option was ruled out in the Edinburgh Agreement; Cameron calculated that the majority middle ground wouldn't vote for Independence, and that a huge "No" vote would crush Scottish Nationalism. Then, when it started to look as though the middle ground might vote "Yes" there was the last-ditch offer of extra powers, to claw back the middle ground.
End result - 55% No, 45 % Yes. But a substantial proportion of those voting Yes (I'm including myself in this) did so because there were only two options, and Yes was the lesser of the two evils.
I don't think Independence is the be-all and end-all of the majority of SNP voters.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I also wonder if some take the "independence eventually" view and others might prefer further devolution on a "let's see" basis.
However, if that is the SNP's strategy I think they're misguided - unless they put their hopes in the process of constitutional reform being stuffed up - which is perhaps reasonable enough. The creation of the Scottish parliament was, in my view, always likely to increase support for independence because by definition it gave Scots the ability to elect representatives to run Scotland the way they chose within a larger polity. However, full independence does require facing issues that devolution doesn't - currency, defence, common trading areas and so on - matters that can only be dealt with on a state-wide basis.
As an aside, I remember about a year out from the referendum, the No campaign were quietly predicting 55/45. At the time, the polls were more like 60+ / 40- but they expected the gap to close as the matter was publicly debated. I think with hindsight, the fact that the top brass at Westminster panicked like they did shows just how lamentably out of touch they were (and probably remain). Mind you, I jumped too. At 5/1 I was very tempted to have a flutter on Yes, and buy myself a bottle of Aberlour with the winnings. Happily my prudence held me back.
I also can't help thinking that the conditions couldn't have been better from a Yes point of view - austerity, government with little support in Scotland, quantative easing benefitting London and nowhere else, and an utterly, utterly lamentable No campaign.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
The creation of the Scottish parliament was, in my view, always likely to increase support for independence because by definition it gave Scots the ability to elect representatives to run Scotland the way they chose within a larger polity.
Yes, and if there had been a three question referendum with DevoMax as an option, I think the vote would have been for DevoMax. But in another 15 years or so, once DevoMax had bedded in, I suspect there would have been calls for another referendum on Independence. So I can see why it made sense to the Tories to remove the DevoMax option and have a two question referendum, in the belief that there would be an overwhelming no, and the whole issue would be kicked into the long grass for a generation.
But the Tories misjudged badly and here we are.
I think this election could be a game changer. Many people in Scotland have felt disenfranchised from Westminster - there are more pandas (two) than Conservative MPs (one), and yet there is a Conservative Government. But even if there had been a Labour government, the sense of disenfranchisement would still have been there, because the Labour heartlands of Scotland are Old Labour, and the Westminster Labour party is largely New Labour.
If this time round there's a Labour party in power, forced to listen to the SNP in return for support on a case-by-case basis then Scotland finds itself re-enfranchised at Westminster.
Interesting times ahead.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If this time round there's a Labour party in power, forced to listen to the SNP in return for support on a case-by-case basis then Scotland finds itself re-enfranchised at Westminster.
Which is my (Scottish) wife's opinion. But if that is what happens, will it increase the demand for the same thing to happen for the other nations and regions within Britain? I suspect so.
Both she and I are federalists along this line.
[ 07. April 2015, 07:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
... But even if there had been a Labour government, the sense of disenfranchisement would still have been there, because the Labour heartlands of Scotland are Old Labour, and the Westminster Labour party is largely New Labour.
...
That's actually quite a surprising statement from down here. Back in the 1980s when the English Labour Party seemed to be committing hari kiri, the Scottish one, the party from which John Smith emerged, seemed to remain outside that fanaticism and blood-letting. So perhaps even the phrase Old Labour and what it represents mean something different in Scotland?
It also isn't only the Scots who feel disenfranchised by Westminster. At least the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish have a group of public figures committed to running their part of the union and aspiring to represent them. We haven't even got that.
[ 07. April 2015, 07:54: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I suspect part of the problem is consistent centralising and streamlining various government functions in order to save money (I suppose the NHS would be something of an exception). Once you shut the local offices and retrench the local or regional managers, it is much harder to keep your fingers on the pulses of various localities and regions, and respond properly to the people you serve.
Especially if you outsource services to the likes of Serco etc.
I emigrated to NZ a decade back. One thing I immediately noticed was just how easy it was to talk to a civil servant capable of exercising their judgment to get things done. In more recent times, however, there is a fashion for hiring UK civil servants. They are absolutely obsessed with standardisation and process. It is turning staff into robots, and perhaps the idea is that eventually they will be replaced with them. This fetish pleases no one but the Cabinet.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Enoch wrote: quote:
That's actually quite a surprising statement from down here. Back in the 1980s when the English Labour Party seemed to be committing hari kiri, the Scottish one, the party from which John Smith emerged, seemed to remain outside that fanaticism and blood-letting. So perhaps even the phrase Old Labour and what it represents mean something different in Scotland?
I think the blood-letting was really precipitated by the troubles with entryist Trotskyite factions (or so they were perceived) rather than old labour. It gave the Blairite new labour the chance to make their own appearance on the back of worries about Marxist-Leninists in old labour, though in truth old labour was always a mixed left-wing front. IYSWIM.
No doubt this perception varies according to where you stand.
[ 07. April 2015, 11:10: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most people, when asked "what do you think about person X" would tend to appear to be fair and say something positive. To simply point out all their faults seems rude, and where there are various diplomats trying their hardest to avoid war potentially unhelpful.
Do you think? The reaction would presumably vary depending on the person. If 'person X' was, say, Robert Mugabe, do you think a regional politician should be similarly lukewarm in his comments?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most people, when asked "what do you think about person X" would tend to appear to be fair and say something positive. To simply point out all their faults seems rude, and where there are various diplomats trying their hardest to avoid war potentially unhelpful.
Do you think? The reaction would presumably vary depending on the person. If 'person X' was, say, Robert Mugabe, do you think a regional politician should be similarly lukewarm in his comments?
His call for reconciliation between all parties during the 1980 election campaign was a beacon of hope to the people at the end of a protracted conflict. It is a tragedy for the people of Zimbabwe that he reneged on this almost as soon as he entered office, leading to the abuses of the human rights of political opponents and the white population.
I would have liked to see Salmond say more in criticism of Putin (though, I don't know how much was edited out of the transcript published in GQ magazine). But I'm not going to fault him for offering a very small amount of praise as well.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Questions from an outsider:
Note that I am differentiating a "formal coalition" of the type that now exists with the Tories and LibDems with an informal agreement to support a PM's party on votes of confidence and on budget measures.
1. Would Labour ever consent to a formal coalition with the SNP (ie, SNP gets some cabinet positions, SNP policies are part of some joint agreement announced at the formation of a government?), seeing that the SNP is still an anti-Union party, regardless of its "moving on" after the referendum results?
2. Would the SNP ever agree to be part of a formal coalition at Westminster with any party, for fear of seeming hypocritical?
Of course, an informal agreement with SNP and another party to support confidence and supply motions is, as I said, a completely different thing.
Maybe Labour and the SNP have already given answers to these questions, so I'm honestly admitting that I don't know.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I think the answers to both of those questions at the moment appears to be 'no'.
I think Labour may be more likely to consider a formal coalition with the SNP. But, I suspect they will be slaughtered by the English electorate by giving Scottish politicians controlling positions in a UK government (although, presumably, those same voters would have no problem if Labour came out of the elections with a dozen MPs from Scottish constituencies that tipped them into a small majority - such are the indiosyncracies of electorates).
The SNP have ruled out participation in any form of coalition in Westminster on matter of principal.
Although I would add that once the votes are in and the bargaining to form a government begins about the first thing that seems to get sacrificed is high principal (just ask Clegg), so I wouldn't rule anything out.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
That's unfair on Clegg. If anything he was too princpled, stating in advance that he would seek a coalition with the largest parliamentary party and adhering to stuff like cabinet collective responsibility, which really don't work in coalition government. He and the rest of the Lib Dems ought to have driven a harder bargain, much like I suspect the SNP will.
There are two risks that parties face when in the position of the Lib Dems in 2010 or the likely position of the SNP at the forthcoming election: 1. facing criticism for sacrificing principles or 2. facing criticism for rendering the political process unworkable and causing mayhem.
The SNP need to beware of the latter. Cameron gets first dibs on forming a government. If he chooses to form a minority goverment it will presumably require a no-confidence vote brought by the SNP and Labour (to whom the SNP have hitched their wagon, regardless of the fact that Labour haven't reciprocated yet). There could be all sorts of shenanigans. Also, due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 it is no longer nearly as easy simply to dissolve parliament and call a fresh election.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That's unfair on Clegg. If anything he was too princpled, stating in advance that he would seek a coalition with the largest parliamentary party and adhering to stuff like cabinet collective responsibility
Yes, I know it was unfair. Put me down as a LibDem voter who felt let down that the LibDems didn't fight their corner in the coalition negotiations strongly enough - in particular by accepting a referendum on a crap electoral reform system that wasn't in their manifesto, and also being forced to follow Cameron on tuition fees. Would the coalition not worked if Clegg had demanded a referendum on PR rather than AV, and that they would want a free vote on tuition fees? OK, quite possibly it would because they might have won a PR referendum and a free vote on tuition fees could have defeated that bill - and, I don't think Cameron wanted to risk either of those to happen, and may have prefered to try a minority government instead.
quote:
Cameron gets first dibs on forming a government.
Only if the Tories are the largest party.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That's unfair on Clegg. If anything he was too princpled, stating in advance that he would seek a coalition with the largest parliamentary party and adhering to stuff like cabinet collective responsibility
Yes, I know it was unfair. Put me down as a LibDem voter who felt let down that the LibDems didn't fight their corner in the coalition negotiations strongly enough - in particular by accepting a referendum on a crap electoral reform system that wasn't in their manifesto, and also being forced to follow Cameron on tuition fees. Would the coalition not worked if Clegg had demanded a referendum on PR rather than AV, and that they would want a free vote on tuition fees? OK, quite possibly it would because they might have won a PR referendum and a free vote on tuition fees could have defeated that bill - and, I don't think Cameron wanted to risk either of those to happen, and may have prefered to try a minority government instead.
quote:
Cameron gets first dibs on forming a government.
Only if the Tories are the largest party.
IIRC, in the event of no party having a majority, the sitting PM does indeed get first go at forming a govt, whether leader of the largest party or not.
Often forgotten five years later, but Brown did in 2010. It was only when Labour couldn't bang out a deal that Brown asked the queen to send for Dave.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I didn't know that. But, according to theUK Parliament website that is correct, and the sitting PM gets first dibs at forming a government.
It's good to learn things.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The sitting PM continues to be PM until either he/she resigns or somebody else puts a government together. Short of losing a no-confidence vote, it would be regarded as very, very bad form to resign before someone else is in a position to take over. It is even possible that if a person tried to do that, it might be incumbent on the Queen to refuse to accept their resignation.
Stonespring, it is, if anything, temperamentally even harder for the Labour Party than the Conservatives to re-digest its way of looking at the world sufficiently to enter into a formal coalition which went as far as actually including other party figures in the government rather than just agreeing not to vote them down.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I knew the PM stayed put while a government is formed, even when there's no coalition agreement to be bashed out there is still a short time before everyone is signed in and in place. Although it's not likely anything will happen, but someone should be on the bridge keeping watch.
What I didn't know before today was that the sitting PM gets first chance to form a government if there is no overall majority, even if they didn't get the most seats.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
As I understand it (from a friend who works in the Cabinet Office), part of the reason for this is that we continue to have a government that could act in a national crisis if need be.
Parliament cannot be recalled as there are no MPs, but we do have ministers of government, including a prime minister. That's why Cameron can still call himself prime minister and why Hammond was able to recently act as secretary of state for defence in the recent Iranian nuclear talks.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If this time round there's a Labour party in power, forced to listen to the SNP in return for support on a case-by-case basis then Scotland finds itself re-enfranchised at Westminster.
Interesting times ahead.
And this is where I think the SNP risks getting itself a very bloody nose (which I personally don’t regard as a bad thing, in the interests of full disclosure).
AFAICT the SNP are hoping, or even expecting, to be the tail that wags the Westminster dog. The experience of the Lib Dems this time round proves to me that dogs wag their tails and not the other way round.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Sturgeon has said, "I'm offering to help make Ed Miliband prime minister". I think this might be a dangerous thing for her to say - even though everyone knows that it is probably true! For surely the SNP must keep differentiating itself from Labour; if it appears to be simply "shoring up" Labour's position, then it may lose votes.
On the other hand, it will still attract those who are further to the Left than Labour, and - of course - those who hold an "independence" or "federalist" position rather than a "unionist" one.
What is interesting is that, if we do get a Labour/SNP government, presumably Sturgeon could not be Deputy Prime Minister a la Clegg, as she won't be an MP. (I doubt if they could bump her up to the Lords and have her be DPM from there).
[ 08. April 2015, 10:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Sturgeon has said, "I'm offering to help make Ed Miliband prime minister". I think this might be a dangerous thing for her to say - even though everyone knows that it is probably true! For surely the SNP must keep differentiating itself from Labour; if it appears to be simply "shoring up" Labour's position, then it may lose votes.
On the other hand, it will still attract those who are further to the Left than Labour, and - of course - those who hold an "independence" or "federalist" position rather than a "unionist" one.
What is interesting is that, if we do get a Labour/SNP government, presumably Sturgeon could not be Deputy Prime Minister a la Clegg, as she won't be an MP. (I doubt if they could bump her up to the Lords and have her be DPM from there).
Unless the SNP are lying*, then an SNP/Labour government isn't on the cards. Both sides have ruled out I think any formal coalition, so no government posts for the SNP.
*which would be amusing insofar as it would cause some of the more vocal extremist cybernats' heads to explode when they realise they're just like all the others but with a gloss of newness
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What is interesting is that, if we do get a Labour/SNP government, presumably Sturgeon could not be Deputy Prime Minister a la Clegg, as she won't be an MP. (I doubt if they could bump her up to the Lords and have her be DPM from there).
although, from the Putin/Medvedev playbook,
"poor Alex Salmond, forced out of retirement as First Minister of Scotland to serve as the lowly DPM of the UK..."
Until Nicola ruled out SNP coalition, I had actually assumed that was the plan.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Nicola Sturgeon is First Minister in Scotland. She has no seat in Westminster and is not standing. Any arrangement in the Westminster parliament has to be with the SNP members of that Parliament. There will inevitably be a lot of critical comment/speculation after the election as to whether,
a. Nicola is on the telephone all the time and they take their orders from her, or
b. They are doing their own thing.
This will be especially the case if, as appears almost certain, Alex Salmond is elected to Westminster.
This will be a new scenario as there was no parliament back home and no First Minister in John Redmond's day.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
although, from the Putin/Medvedev playbook,
"poor Alex Salmond, forced out of retirement as First Minister of Scotland to serve as the lowly DPM of the UK..."
I'm not sure that would have been the plan. The SNP don't look likely to be as big in 2015 as the Lid Dems were in 2010, so Salmond may end up as secretary of state for Scotland or leader of the House of Commons.
One thing I find an intriguing possibility is, given the state of the Palace of Westminster, whether an SNP-anybody coalition might try to move the seat of government away from London for a fixed period of time. Possibly to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester or Birmingham.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
although, from the Putin/Medvedev playbook,
"poor Alex Salmond, forced out of retirement as First Minister of Scotland to serve as the lowly DPM of the UK..."
I'm not sure that would have been the plan. The SNP don't look likely to be as big in 2015 as the Lid Dems were in 2010, so Salmond may end up as secretary of state for Scotland or leader of the House of Commons.
That might be no bad thing. DPM has been Secretary of State for Bad News, certainly when Prescott and Clegg held it. Willie Whitelaw probably did it best but at best it's an Aunt Sally and no place for an ambitious, vain man.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
although, from the Putin/Medvedev playbook,
"poor Alex Salmond, forced out of retirement as First Minister of Scotland to serve as the lowly DPM of the UK..."
I'm not sure that would have been the plan. The SNP don't look likely to be as big in 2015 as the Lid Dems were in 2010, so Salmond may end up as secretary of state for Scotland or leader of the House of Commons.
One thing I find an intriguing possibility is, given the state of the Palace of Westminster, whether an SNP-anybody coalition might try to move the seat of government away from London for a fixed period of time. Possibly to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester or Birmingham.
with the best will in the world, that is not going to happen. Well, actually, I'd go as far as saying they could *try,* and it's intriguing, but whatever else it is IMO it's not an intriguing *possibility.*
They can shout and scream all they want but I don't believe such a thing could ever be other than a free vote, and they just wouldn't be able to get a majority - far too many of the 650-whatever inhabitants are very happy living in London; it'd make the BBC move to Salford (which in itself hasn't been a success) look sensible.
OTOH, having assumed any form of grand coalition would be up to five years of the worst sort of pork-barrel politics, it would actually be reassuring if they did intend to waste their time on futile gesture politics.
In the unlikely event that we get an English parliament (which I very much want), then there's a chance we could put it somewhere else. Getting Westminster out of Westminster, however...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I'd put money on the QE Conference Centre over the road to be honest (quite apart from anything else the government still own it - for now) with Westminster Hall, as now, doing the spillover. If they did one House at a time (with the Commons occupying whichever one is open) that'll work.
Incidentally, it isn't just the north that gets ignored by Westminster. I just wonder how happy the "we're ignored in the north" gang would be if the agreement to move out of London was settled on five years in Plymouth, Exeter, or Norwich though...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Willie Whitelaw probably did it best but at best it's an Aunt Sally and no place for an ambitious, vain man.
Does it really matter that Salmond may or may not be either or both?
I must say that I find this line of argumentation rather bemusing. ISTM that in the absence of a reasoned argument against specific policies, particular personal foibles substitute. I've seen more people in my facebook feed critique Blair for his post political money making than his 45 minute claim,
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Willie Whitelaw probably did it best but at best it's an Aunt Sally and no place for an ambitious, vain man.
Does it really matter that Salmond may or may not be either or both?
I intended to say that DPM is nowadays a thankless task, a poisoned chalice, with the main but not quite sole objective of deflecting criticism from the leader, often from within his or her own party.
That was why I mentioned Whitelaw. He was DPM for nine years, resigned because of illness and the PM was gone in less than two.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Willie Whitelaw probably did it best but at best it's an Aunt Sally and no place for an ambitious, vain man.
Does it really matter that Salmond may or may not be either or both?
I intended to say that DPM is nowadays a thankless task, a poisoned chalice, with the main but not quite sole objective of deflecting criticism from the leader, often from within his or her own party.
That was why I mentioned Whitelaw. He was DPM for nine years, resigned because of illness and the PM was gone in less than two.
He was, although there is a tendency to, unlike Clegg, combine it with another role. Whitelaw was Home Sec,mthen Lord President of the Council. Heseltine was DPM and President of the Board of Trade.
Incidentally, that's one small knock on of the coalition right there. Knowing some Civil Servants in BIS, they were planning for having to change the boss' name back to President of the Board of Trade, "because that's what the Tories call it" but then they got Vince instead.
AIUI, in the event of a Tory majority at some point in the future, we'll get that title back again, because it's a party shibboleth for some reason ( I can only assume conservation).
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'd put money on the QE Conference Centre over the road to be honest (quite apart from anything else the government still own it - for now) with Westminster Hall, as now, doing the spillover. If they did one House at a time (with the Commons occupying whichever one is open) that'll work.
Incidentally, it isn't just the north that gets ignored by Westminster. I just wonder how happy the "we're ignored in the north" gang would be if the agreement to move out of London was settled on five years in Plymouth, Exeter, or Norwich though...
Why have Parliament physically located anywhere? Ministers can live in London but everyone else can take part in Parliamentary debates by video-link from their constituency and vote electronically.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Why have Parliament physically located anywhere? Ministers can live in London but everyone else can take part in Parliamentary debates by video-link from their constituency and vote electronically.
In my experience, small video meetings (with a few locations each with a handful of people) work OK. They're significantly inferior to physical meetings, but not having to travel makes up for that. Large video meetings - with multiple rooms of many tens of people, or dozens of locations, are hopeless. The idea of a 500-location video-link debate being useful is laughable.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Though, given the nature of most Commons debates (as seen on the TV) "useful" is a term of dubious merit. Either we have a few dozen MPs sitting around the House listening dutifully - in which case a video conference would work. Or, we have a packed House of people screaming and shouting and generally behaving like school kids (except the Speaker doesn't have the authority to send them to corner, that's if there were 600 corners in Palace of Westminster in the first place), and I don't see anything useful done there anyway.
The real work in Parliament is done in Committees, and they would seem perfectly amenable to remote participation.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The real work in Parliament is done in Committees, and they would seem perfectly amenable to remote participation.
Maybe. I find that we get much more work done in-person rather than via phone or video. I'm actually surprised by how big the difference is.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yes, I agree, personal is better (though, often, what's more important is the conversations over lunch or while waiting for people to arrive before business itself starts).
But, I don't think it's impossible for Parliament to conduct more of it's business remotely. Many businesses are doing that to cut down on costs (not just financial, but also time taken to travel). In these days of austerity perhaps Parliament should seriously consider similar ways of cutting costs.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The real work in Parliament is done in Committees, and they would seem perfectly amenable to remote participation.
Maybe. I find that we get much more work done in-person rather than via phone or video. I'm actually surprised by how big the difference is.
IIRC (and John Holding can correct me on this) Canadian Senate committees have held remote-link meetings, primarily for the convenience (and related expenses) of farflung witnesses. As most serious parliamentary work is done in committee, video links could work much of the time with the proviso that much serious discussion needs to happen in person so some realtime sessions still need to be held, and that there are some places where it is useful for parliamentarians to see and experience first-hand.
For the issue of DPMs, I have seen them handle much of the government operations side which will often slide when PMs do their I-am-really-a-president foreign travel and PR routines. I can think of at least two DPMs (Mazankowski under Mulroney and Grey under Chrétien) who kept elaborate cabinet committee structures running smoothly and effectively for years when their bosses were off doing something or the other. As PMs try to be presidential, their time is chewed up and DPMs can end up being the chief operating officer.
While Attlee under Churchill is a good example of how this could work, I wonder if having your DPM be the head of the junior partner in a coalition might end up being something entirely different.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In my experience, small video meetings (with a few locations each with a handful of people) work OK. They're significantly inferior to physical meetings, but not having to travel makes up for that. Large video meetings - with multiple rooms of many tens of people, or dozens of locations, are hopeless. The idea of a 500-location video-link debate being useful is laughable.
To be honest I find it hard to imagine that 500-member debate will ever achieve anything very much.
As a matter of fact the House of Commons does not contain enough space for all its members. For some big debates MPs have been squashed in the doorway and out into the corridor. (At least according to the tour guide a few years ago.)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
For the issue of DPMs, I have seen them handle much of the government operations side which will often slide when PMs do their I-am-really-a-president foreign travel and PR routines. I can think of at least two DPMs (Mazankowski under Mulroney and Grey under Chrétien) who kept elaborate cabinet committee structures running smoothly and effectively for years when their bosses were off doing something or the other. As PMs try to be presidential, their time is chewed up and DPMs can end up being the chief operating officer.
While Attlee under Churchill is a good example of how this could work, I wonder if having your DPM be the head of the junior partner in a coalition might end up being something entirely different.
That's like the military situation in which one has a field officer to decide 'what' and a staff officer to work out 'how'. It takes a brave staff officer to tell his commander that something can't be done but he has to be able to do that, which Clegg never appeared able or willing to do.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I don't think the SNP want to dirty their hands with ministerial responsiblity. They only need the support of those resident in Scotland. To retain that support, they can take advantage of the purity of being a party of protest at Westminster, in the knowledge that they have already proved themselves in government in Scotland.
Which is why I do find it very interesting (and encouraging) that Nicola Sturgeon says she is on the side of those wanting reform at Westminster.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
As a matter of fact the House of Commons does not contain enough space for all its members. For some big debates MPs have been squashed in the doorway and out into the corridor. (At least according to the tour guide a few years ago.)
Another argument for rehousing Parliament away from the Palace of Westminster.
Some years back, my father was invited to a function there. He said he was faced at every turn by visual reminders of history and tradition: statues and pictures of monarchs, emblems, coats of arms, battles and so forth, and he said he was left wondering what effect this must have on the minds of MPs.
(He also said that when he and his fellow guests left the building, they found themselves being heartily cheered by a crowd of strikingly-dressed people with lots of piercings. Apparently, the bill to reduce the homosexual age of consent had passed its second reading that day, the crowd assumed they'd voted for it).
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
I thought the House of Commons was deliberately too small for all MPs, so that when all are there, it has a bustle-y and crowded dynamic.
M.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I thought the House of Commons was deliberately too small for all MPs, so that when all are there, it has a bustle-y and crowded dynamic.
M.
I'm having difficulty imagining Barry and Pugin going -
'hey man, how about we get this really busy vibe going by squooshing up the seating?
- Let me do you finials and some bitching jambshafts to go with that.'
Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on
:
I think that when the house of Commons was rebuilt after being bombed in WW2, it was suggested that a different design and possibly a bigger chamber should be built to accommodate the increased number of MPs. Churchill insisted on the original design
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Some years back, my father was invited to a function there. He said he was faced at every turn by visual reminders of history and tradition: statues and pictures of monarchs, emblems, coats of arms, battles and so forth, and he said he was left wondering what effect this must have on the minds of MPs.
It is quite ersatz and Victorian. It is a postwar reconstruction of a Pre-Raphaelite fantasy of what a Medieval court ought to have looked like.
(The same tour guide also informed us that one set of pictures is the reason the National Portrait Gallery was created. One of the antechambers features a number of images of historical figures, each of which has completely the wrong caption. When this was discovered, a few years after the place opened, the National Portrait Gallery was created to ensure such a silly mistake never occurred again.)
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
This piece of election news rather made me smile. After finally admitting that he was a perennial liar (or over-firm denier as he might have it), Grant Shapps is being opposed in his local constituency by none other than his alter ego's namesake, Michael Green. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
But do either of them realise that the name Michael Green was that of a humourist and journalist who wrote a series of books The Art of Coarse ... on subjects from sex to acting, via sailing, rugby, etc.?
And perhaps his best book (which was reprinted a few years ago) is Squire Haggard's Journal, a Hogarthian spoof I'd recommend to anyone.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
/tangent
Grant Shapps on the other hand, could only possibly be the name of an estate agents
tangent/
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Tangent //
Our local Lib Dem candidate's first election leaflet was printed in Chelmsford and her second in Sheffield. I feel that local leaflets should be printed locally, especially as the leaflet claims that she supports local jobs. It has been suggested to me that political parties are public authorities and are legally obliged to put e.g. printing out to tender, and if a firm in Sheffield puts in a better offer, the candidate can't get their leaflets printed by a more expensive firm in the constituency. Is this true?
// End tangent
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
A political party receive some public support eg airtime on the public broadcaster, but I can't imagine they are bound by the kind of rules on Best Value that bedevil the Civil Services or local government.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There are restrictions on how much money they can spend. But, I don't see why they need to go with the cheapest option, so long as they're happy with getting less leaflets printed.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I thought the House of Commons was deliberately too small for all MPs, so that when all are there, it has a bustle-y and crowded dynamic.
M.
I'm having difficulty imagining Barry and Pugin going -
'hey man, how about we get this really busy vibe going by squooshing up the seating?
- Let me do you finials and some bitching jambshafts to go with that.'
Firenze, I am now going to picture that conversation every time I see the Palace of Westminster - which on days I am working is at least six times a day.
What people were saying about moving Parliament out to a different location though - Pugin's creation is apparently crumbling and falling down, and repairs are very much needed - there is discussion over whether such repairs would be possible with MPs sitting, or whether they'd have to relocate for the duration.
There are also those who say that that sort of spend is ridiculous, and that the Houses should relocate altogether, leaving someone else (National Trust? Private Company? Someone Else?) to pay the enormous repair bill.
That sounds unlikely to happen, but it's an interesting thought. I wonder how much the mechanics of government would change - the voting lobbies? The costumes? The traditions? Would that affect the MPs and the way we're goverened?
Maybe they could move Parliament to Hull and turn the Palace of Westminster into affordable homes... (that's obviously more of a concept plan than an actual suggestion, but it's a nice little springboard for thinking or discussion).
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Such is the labyrinthine nature of the Palace, you'd save up and buy a flat there and after your first trip out you'd never be able to find it again.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Such is the labyrinthine nature of the Palace, you'd save up and buy a flat there and after your first trip out you'd never be able to find it again.
This could create employment for a new trade of flatfinders.
There is no constitutional requirement for Parliament to be at Westminster, and in mediaeval times, parliaments sat at Winchester and other places, to wherever the monarch summoned them. With increasing electronic communication and storage, there is really no need for all but a few MPs and Lords to have offices and all that is really needed is a meeting hall with benches, and a dozen or so committee rooms.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Tangent //
Our local Lib Dem candidate's first election leaflet was printed in Chelmsford and her second in Sheffield. I feel that local leaflets should be printed locally, especially as the leaflet claims that she supports local jobs. It has been suggested to me that political parties are public authorities and are legally obliged to put e.g. printing out to tender, and if a firm in Sheffield puts in a better offer, the candidate can't get their leaflets printed by a more expensive firm in the constituency. Is this true?
// End tangent
AIUI, candidates can put their leaflets out on vellum and written in the blood of pandas or run them off on a risograph depending on their budget and preference. I have no particular brief for the Lib Dems, but isn't this a bit parochial? I now have visions of Tubbs and Edward announcing: "Leaflets from Chelmsford! We'll have no such leaflets here! This is a local election, for local people! There's nothing for you here!" It's not like Chelmsford is in a different country, is it? I mean, you might want it to be but your fellow Scots voted otherwise.
Still, it could be worse. A UKIP candidate, apparently, got her 'Believe in Britain' leaflets printed in Germany. Her response was 'oh, but we believe in free trade'. Of course you do, Madam.
T. H. White was bang on the money with regard to this one. "Once you have nationalism you end up with monkeys throwing nuts at one another from separate trees".
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
We've now had another Lib Dem leaflet, this one printed in Lincoln. It seems a bit odd, given that the leaflets themselves state that the candidate supports local businesses, not to use one of said local businesses to print her leaflets. The Tory one was printed in the constituency. I haven't had one from either the SNP or Labour yet (I'm not sure if the Labour candidate is actually canvassing for this seat) so can't comment on those yet.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
This whole thing of the Tories and Labour falling over each other to paint the Scots as some sort of 'other', whose influence, if they chose to vote for the anti-austerity party of the SNP, would be malign and disasterous is so infuriating. A few months ago all the Westminster parties were babbling on patronisingly about how we were all one, and how they valued Scotland, and how they would ramp up Devolution to Devo-Max forthwith. The Devo-Max lies were apparent from pretty much the morning after, and now the lies about how they value Scotland, and we're all one union are plain to see.
I bet some of those who were undecided and then voted "No" in the referendum are bitterly regretting that now.
Here's an article from The National about how it's not England being fleeced by the Scots, but the other way around. (Yes, I know The National has a declared pro-Independence angle, but it's the on I had saved on Delicious, so I was able to actually find it!)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I agree with that. It's almost as if all parties have given up on the union, and are encouraging English nationalism. If I lived in Scotland, I would foresee independence quite soon, unless it all dies down again after the election. But it's not going to go away now, unless the SNP vote collapses in the future, which seems doubtful.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
It definitely feels as though the Tories are trying to shuck off Scotland.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I live in London, have done for years, although I'm Scottish, and I've never seen so much anti-Scottish feeling displayed so overtly and prominently in the press down here as now. You see the lazy generalisations, and the general ignoring (similar to that to a greater or lesser extent experienced by anyone in the UK outside London) all the time, but it appears as though the printed-press in particular have now been given license to decloak and say what they really think. Maybe it's a relief for them after having pretended to give a shit about Scotland during the Referendum period.
Why should it be so wrong that a party that people have voted for get some influence in Westminster?
Maybe they're worried by how many people from England were asking after seeing Nicola Sturgeon in the Leaders' Debates how they could vote for the SNP. Hopefully those people looking for an alternative to austerity or austerity-lite might consider voting Green.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, Nicola has been the outstanding personality so far, although I must admit, Miliband is doing better than I thought he would.
But the day after the referendum, Cameron showed his hard-on for English nationalism, it's quite weird, as if he's pushing for the break-up of the union now. But I suppose the Tories just see it as a way to win this time.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Several things I find really depressing about this election:-
1. No prominent politician has risen in estimation - well, one anyway - during the campaign. Several, for various different reasons and including both of the main party leaders, have gone seriously downwards in it.
2. Every day seems to see the two biggest parties pluck yet another random new policy out of their hats, like some dreadful auction for our votes.
3. Don't they realise that doing this gives the rest of us the impression that they have no confidence in their own competence to govern?
4. Under their hats, are they both assuming they aren't going to get a majority? So this will let them off the hook. Whichever one does get to form a government can blame someone else for not being able to deliver the goodies they've been promising. I'm sure this is true for most of Labour's promised extra expenditure and the Tories' right-to-buy for housing association tenants.
5. On the Union and where England fits into it, both of which are important, neither of the two main parties gives any impression that they have ever thought anything through. The Tories don't want to wake up to the fact that there needs to be some constitutional restructuring, and this isn't the only reason why. So out come policy initiatives plucked from the air. Labour, faced with losing all their Scottish seats, have gone completely silent on the subject.
6. The Greens haven't got much reason for existence now that except for UKIP the other parties all have a green agenda. So they have gone off on a batty tangent of their own but seem to be hoping no one has noticed.
7. Nicola Sturgeon speaks for the SNP, but no pundit seems to have noticed that she's the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament. Whoever else gets elected to Westminster, she won't be. So does this assume the SNP members at Westminster will be puppets on the end of mobile phones. Or will nothing that might have been said elsewhere be binding on them after the 8th of May?
8. The less said about UKIP the better.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Living in the very north of England, anti-SNP sentiment is, as far a I can tell, almost non-existent. Indeed, several people have expressed to me a willingness to vote for the SNP, if only they would stand south of the border.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, it's interesting to see if Cameron's warnings about Labour/SNP bear fruit, possibly in Scots independence! The Tories look panicky to me, Miliband surprisingly relaxed, but then he doesn't expect to win, just stop the other guy winning, and they're helping in that.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Nicola Sturgeon speaks for the SNP, but no pundit seems to have noticed that she's the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament. Whoever else gets elected to Westminster, she won't be. So does this assume the SNP members at Westminster will be puppets on the end of mobile phones. Or will nothing that might have been said elsewhere be binding on them after the 8th of May?
Angus Robertson is SNP leader in the House of Commons, but the media seem to be focussing on Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I'm pleased to see this thread alive again, but isn't this the most boring election in living memory?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well, according to this week's Economist, with all the multi-party fray, the UK will have to get used to looking more like Belgium. Isn't that excitement enough?
(I'll actually be in the UK on polling day, but I've been out of the country too long to vote ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm pleased to see this thread alive again, but isn't this the most boring election in living memory?
No it isn't. It's rather a worrying one but we're all trying to pretend otherwise because we'd rather not think about what will happen if our politicians foul up. 2001 was the most boring one.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
This playing politics with the existence of the UK itself - I find it infuriating. The Scottish independence movement has been not only important but growing in importance for years, yet central government has simply ignored it.
I understand that Tony Blair didn't even think offering devolution to Scotland was that important a matter. It was the likes of Donald Dewar and Gordon Brown who pushed it through.
Then more recently, there was the utterly lamentable No campaign, which was topped off by a panic scramble to the north, prompted by one opinion poll that was probably rogue, and culminating in an incomprehensible and undecipherable "vow" whose only effect has been fury.
Now we have the Tories stoking up anti-Scottish resentment probably in order to squeeze the UKIP vote. It seems that we find ourselves in the astonishing sitaution that Nicola Sturgeon's is the safest pair of hands for the Union to be in, as she is the only one who seems to be interested in finding a permanent solution that works for everyone.
Now I am going to say something that I'm not particularly proud of. I deplore anti-Scottish sentiment. However, I remember living in the west of Scotland in the 90s, and felt frankly unwelcome. Lots and lots of little things - examples: my local pub with the "English Git" comic strip on the wall; the friend with the "take out the Englishman and bring in the dog", the constant, constant comparisons between English social tendencies and Scottish social tendencies, constant equating of Englishness with Toryism, both Labour and SNP stoking up the anti-English rhetoric to gain Scottish votes - and the bigger things as well - I never actually got beaten up, but there were a number of close runs.
(And in case anyone wonders if I just can't take a joke - well I remember being held halfway up the wall by the neck and called an English bastard by a friend - we were just mucking about and it doesn't count).
I've spent most of my life since then outside the UK, married someone not from the UK, and I have never encountered anything like the animosity (directed at me personally) that I experienced in Scotland.
So when I observe, for example, anti-Scottish sentiment in the English press, I instinctively think a) it's not as bad as what was in the Scottish press back in the 90s and b) what goes around comes around, and it's been a long, long time coming. My experience is that - back then at least - there was a lot of anti-English bigotry in Scotland. But the better part of me thinks: a lot of people need to grow up, put the tribalism to one side, stop scoring points off each other, and work out a new constitutional settlement that works, and I also remind myself that while I was in Scotland, I made some good friends that I keep up with to this day.
[ 26. April 2015, 21:38: Message edited by: Cod ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I was asked today by Christian Research to liken party leaders to Biblical characters. Yes, really.
Inevitably, Nick Clegg ended up as Judas Iscariot.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I did that one too. But I couldn't match Clegg with anyone on the list.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Milliband was Saul - on account of how he may be implacably opposed to the SNP just now, but he may well look at the numbers of May 8 and have a sudden conversion.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Nicola Sturgeon was Moses. Let my people go...
I really wasn't sure why they needed such information, but it makes a change from the usual raft of Dead Horse questions.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I put Nicola Sturgeon down as Deborah. Strong, independent woman.
Anyone else do this survey?
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm pleased to see this thread alive again, but isn't this the most boring election in living memory?
It is certainly the most tedious. I wouldn't mind so much but they've been campaigning for over a year now......
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Several things I find really depressing about this election:-
1. No prominent politician has risen in estimation - well, one anyway - during the campaign. Several, for various different reasons and including both of the main party leaders, have gone seriously downwards in it.
I'd disagree - Miliband seems to be making a better fist of things than I'd have thought (I know, it's not the greatest of plaudits, but he does seem to be showing people he's not the useless muppet the media have tried to make him out to be).
Nicola Sturgeon has shown herself to be a force to be reckoned with.
Leanne Wood and Natalie Bennett, while not having been as impressive in the Debates as Sturgeon, have presented their Parties' policies well and shown that austerity is not inevitable. Bennett isn't the greatest speaker, true, and some of her interviews have been unfortunate, but she has nevertheless been a good Party leader, overseeing a membership surge to around 61200 (more than LibDems or UKIP) at a time that membership of the three traditionally 'main parties' is at a historic low.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
5. On the Union and where England fits into it, both of which are important, neither of the two main parties gives any impression that they have ever thought anything through. The Tories don't want to wake up to the fact that there needs to be some constitutional restructuring, and this isn't the only reason why. So out come policy initiatives plucked from the air. Labour, faced with losing all their Scottish seats, have gone completely silent on the subject.
7. Nicola Sturgeon speaks for the SNP, but no pundit seems to have noticed that she's the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament. Whoever else gets elected to Westminster, she won't be. So does this assume the SNP members at Westminster will be puppets on the end of mobile phones. Or will nothing that might have been said elsewhere be binding on them after the 8th of May?
quote:
2014: David Cameron: " Scotland is a cherished part of the UK ! they are very much a part of us , as we are a part of them , we are better together "
2015: David Cameron: " Scotland having any sway in our parliament would be a disaster for this country "
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
The "No" campaign were a shambles, and it appears that they have carried on their shambolic negativity. They didn't ever offer anything positive, just kept banging on that Bad Things might happen if Scotland left the UK. It was the "No" campaign that convinced me that I'd have voted "Yes" if I still lived back in Scotland, and meant I looked into it more, which consolidated that opinion. Afterwards it seemed more like the "Yes" had won - there have been some ongoing movements that are really interesting - for example, the Common Weal project, whose Red Lines campaign for the Election I mentioned upthread, and its spinoff news site Commonspace.
In the meantime, the "No" campaign has a broken vow and the current car-crash that is the Scottish Labour Party.
Nicola Sturgeon not being a Westminster MP might make it interesting in the event of the predicted swing to SNP, but aren't the other MPs just puppets on the end of their parties' Whips? How the SNP block behaves will be very scrutinised, so it is in their interest to stick to their principles and not sell out to the pro-austerity agenda of Labour/Tories. I think Sturgeon is a savvy enough and strong enough leader to be able to keep that on track, and hope that they get enough to make a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
6. The Greens haven't got much reason for existence now that except for UKIP the other parties all have a green agenda. So they have gone off on a batty tangent of their own but seem to be hoping no one has noticed.
So you haven't read their manifesto then (Here it is. Have a look)? You're just going on the right-wing Murdoch press bollocks? You are, of course, at liberty to define anti-austerity, social-justice policies that seek to reduce the gap between the poorest and the richest in society, while having a responsible plan for the environment that unites those goals as a "batty tangent" if you like. I'd rather see it as aspirational policies for much-needed change, change I would dearly like to see, and am more than pleased to vote for, even if that vote may not be counted this Election, maybe it might be buildable on for the next one or the one after.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
8. The less said about UKIP the better.
Indeed.
[ 27. April 2015, 00:02: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Hmm.
David Cameron = Rehoboam
George Galloway = Shimei
Gordon Brown = Jeremiah
George Osborne = Pontius Pilate
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nicola Sturgeon speaks for the SNP, but no pundit seems to have noticed that she's the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament. Whoever else gets elected to Westminster, she won't be.
In some systems this would be entirely unremarkable - AIUI, neither Barack Obama nor François Hollande are members of their respective parliaments.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
That is because they have completely different constitutional systems. Under ours, MPs should not be under the control of someone outside the House.
[ 27. April 2015, 09:46: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
... You're just going on the right-wing Murdoch press bollocks? ...
No I'm not. I don't read them. I've reached that conclusion entirely unaided.
And on my point about plucking another random policy out of the air like an auction, we've had another one only this morning. Mr Miliband has just upped his bid with an announcement that if he wins he'll reduce stamp duty for some people.
Yesterday, some rent controls. Today some stamp duty. What will it be tomorrow? Free sinus operations for all?
What will the Tories offer at lunch time?
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Is there really a great deal of difference between MPs dancing to the prescribed tune of the Party Whips with a Leader who's not an MP, and MPs dancing to the prescribed tune of the Party Whips with a Leader who is an MP?
There may not be precedent (there isn't, is there?), but the effect will be the same.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
... You're just going on the right-wing Murdoch press bollocks? ...
No I'm not. I don't read them. I've reached that conclusion entirely unaided.
Fair enough, sounds sensible - but have you read the GP's Manifesto?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Yesterday, some rent controls. Today some stamp duty. What will it be tomorrow? Free sinus operations for all?
From a leaflet which has just come through my door:
Labour will freeze energy bills, so they can only fall and not rise.
How will that work, exactly?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Yesterday, some rent controls. Today some stamp duty. What will it be tomorrow? Free sinus operations for all?
From a leaflet which has just come through my door:
Labour will freeze energy bills, so they can only fall and not rise.
How will that work, exactly?
I'm not sure, but they could get OFGEN to investigate price fixing. The energy companies take their pricing methods from the OPEC Manual of Fair Competition.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yesterday, some rent controls. Today some stamp duty. What will it be tomorrow? Free sinus operations for all?
What will the Tories offer at lunch time?
If he's anything like Bob Carr, the NSW equivalent of Blair, it won't be sinus operations, but toe-nail clipping. And it won't be the government which carries the cost, but the podiatrists otherwise making an honest penny from the task will be forbidden to charge for that particular service. Lots and lots of people with growing toe-nails pleased, very few who earned a living from it displeased, a few more public service jobs funded by a new licence fee levied on podiatrists.
The one-liner sounds good, but those of us who hoped for real reforms from a party for whom we campaigned lost out badly
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
We've had another one and it's not even 12 'o' clock. Labour's just upped it's own bid with a policy that anyone with the most minimal knowledge would know is not just unachievable but is illegal under European law. Apparently Ed Miliband has just promised that when new houses are sold, local residents will be given a preferential right to buy them.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That is because they have completely different constitutional systems. Under ours, MPs should not be under the control of someone outside the House.
I'm not sure there is any obvious reason why they shouldn't be, though. Mr Cameron's power over the Conservatives derives from the fact that they elected him, not from his position as an MP.
The practical differences are: in the event of a backbench revolt, Mr Cameron is guaranteed at least one vote in his favour, i.e. his own - which seems bad from the POV of separation of powers; and Mr Cameron experiences a potential conflict between the interests of Witney and the interests of Britain as a whole.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not sure there is any obvious reason why they shouldn't be, though.
Because it means those who have been elected are subjecting their judgement to someone who hasn't.
Breach of that principle would be a recipe for corruption. quote:
Mr Cameron's power over the Conservatives derives from the fact that they elected him, not from his position as an MP.
Each party choses its leader from among themselves. The leader's position depends on their ability to lead their party. If they lose that, they are instantly toast. quote:
The practical differences are: in the event of a backbench revolt, Mr Cameron is guaranteed at least one vote in his favour, i.e. his own - which seems bad from the POV of separation of powers; and Mr Cameron experiences a potential conflict between the interests of Witney and the interests of Britain as a whole.
Separation of powers, is not, thankfully, a feature of Westminster type constitutions. It's an alien idea imported from other constitutions which function according to other constitutional philosophies. It is traceable ultimately back to an eighteenth century French philosopher who didn't understand how our constitution worked then, yet alone now.
[ 27. April 2015, 16:14: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
- but the Westminster SNP will have a Westminster party leader, who will have been elected.
On the subject of how Scotland are being depicted in the media and by the traditional three parties, This article on CommonSpace is in ranty style, and I'd have been very pleased to write something like it over on the "Is there anything else happening" thread in Hell, but it makes some good points, and it also makes me want to stand on a chair and shout.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I find the results of this poll hardly credible, but what if they've got it right? What if Scotland sends 57 SNP, 1 Labour and 1 Lib Dem to Westminster?
Politics doesn't feel dull though; I'm just spectating the anti-Trident demonstrations etc through social media, but there seems to be an energy and enthusiasm which started in the run up to the referendum and hasn't abated since.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
there seems to be an energy and enthusiasm which started in the run up to the referendum and hasn't abated since.
I'm down here in London, so I don't know first hand - but following the Referendum made me so much more politically engaged, and much less apathetic, even though I obviously didn't have a vote. That's lasted for me - and looking at the Scottish media, I was thinking that seemed true - although I'm looking at it through the Common Weal, Commonspace, or The National a lot of the time, which grew out of the Referendum's "Yes" campaign, and so are probably more likely to have maintained some of the momentum.
It's good to hear that there seems to still be an increased political engagement - if only we'd have that down here too. We need a catalyst to drive people to voice their wish for change, rather than to just say they want things to be different but that there's no point in trying to do anything about it.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Separation of powers, is not, thankfully, a feature of Westminster type constitutions.
Isn't separation of powers the reason we no longer have Law Lords or a Lord Chancellor in the traditional sense?
Regarding constituency vs country, a story emerges this morning that the fare from the Cotswolds to London is to increase by 87%, in order to bring the route in line with 'comparable' services. Now I may be excessively cynical but it seems to me not impossible that First Great Western have been keeping fares to the Cotswolds deliberately low on the grounds that if the popular murmurings against inflated rail fares do not match the experience of the Prime Minister's constituents, the Prime Minister is more likely to dismiss them as unrepresentative - whilst now FGW has decided to bet on Mr Cameron losing the premiership after the election.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I completely agree with you here, though:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We've had another one and it's not even 12 'o' clock. Labour's just upped it's own bid with a policy that anyone with the most minimal knowledge would know is not just unachievable but is illegal under European law. Apparently Ed Miliband has just promised that when new houses are sold, local residents will be given a preferential right to buy them.
A few years ago Mr Miliband gave an interview where he said the key failing of New Labour was that it accepted all the mechanisms of Thatcherite capitalism but tried to manipulate the output into something more social-democratic by means of regulation and the welfare state.
Now Mr Miliband seems to have adopted the same philosophy, and thinks that if the public is upset about something the only possible solution can be There Ought To Be A Law Against It!
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I find the results of this poll hardly credible, but what if they've got it right? What if Scotland sends 57 SNP, 1 Labour and 1 Lib Dem to Westminster?
Politics doesn't feel dull though; I'm just spectating the anti-Trident demonstrations etc through social media, but there seems to be an energy and enthusiasm which started in the run up to the referendum and hasn't abated since.
There's also a very interesting post today on the Lord Ashcroft Polls site detailing the recent focus groups held in Glasgow, Paisley and Edinburgh, which I think show a more nuanced view of what is going on up here (ie it's not just that everyone is going to vote SNP unthinkingly or uncritically). Lord Ashcroft polls post. It certainly reflects the debates and discussions I've been hearing, including about the speculation about a further indepenence referendum.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Yes, I agree Jack, that article fits with what I've been hearing, too.
If there's an SNP landslide, it'll be partly because FPTP is going to work to the SNP's advantage this election, but the debate is a lot more nuanced than that.
I'm not getting the impression that there's any appetite for a second referendum, especially if it seems that Scotland will have a voice in Westminster.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Anyone watch the Panorama with Nate Silver last night?
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
The Government campaigned to keep FPTP and campaigned to keep Scotland in the UK. Why do they object to the results of these campaigns?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
The Government campaigned to keep FPTP and campaigned to keep Scotland in the UK. Why do they object to the results of these campaigns?
It is more accurate to say that PART of the government campaigned to keep FPTP.
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on
:
Yep, I watched the Nate Silver programme. I found it a bit irritating, but the final few minutes with his predictions was interesting. This article from the BBC predicting that Labour might do better than expected in some marginals seems to suggest Labour might win a few more seats than Silver thought, but having lived through 1992, where everyone seemed to be saying they'd vote Labour and then the Conservatives got in makes me a bit wary.
What I am finding interesting is that straw polls among the young people I work seems to suggest they are far more pro-Labour than I remember young people being for a while, but then most of them are too young to vote.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
This article on CommonSpace is in ranty style, and I'd have been very pleased to write something like it over on the "Is there anything else happening" thread in Hell, but it makes some good points, and it also makes me want to stand on a chair and shout.
It succinctly outlines most of the reasons why I, as an Englishman, was completely in favour of Scottish independence.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I find the results of this poll hardly credible, but what if they've got it right? What if Scotland sends 57 SNP, 1 Labour and 1 Lib Dem to Westminster?
Politics doesn't feel dull though; I'm just spectating the anti-Trident demonstrations etc through social media, but there seems to be an energy and enthusiasm which started in the run up to the referendum and hasn't abated since.
There's also a very interesting post today on the Lord Ashcroft Polls site detailing the recent focus groups held in Glasgow, Paisley and Edinburgh, which I think show a more nuanced view of what is going on up here (ie it's not just that everyone is going to vote SNP unthinkingly or uncritically). Lord Ashcroft polls post. It certainly reflects the debates and discussions I've been hearing, including about the speculation about a further indepenence referendum.
Barring a miracle of biblical proportions Labour are going to get thumped in Scotland. I suspect (I could be wrong) that Labour will do better than that opinion poll and will end up spinning that what, in ordinary circumstances, would have looked like a cataclysm will seem like a modest success, particularly if it makes them the largest overall party. I have no brief for the SNP (or any other nationalist party, (unless a Grand Coalition between Mebion Kernow and the Wessex Regionalists is in the offing, in which case all bets are off) but they are the one party who are certain to come out of the election with good reason to feel distinctly chuffed with the outcome.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
the only way that the SNP might end up with egg on their face is if it goes all 1992, the incumbents maintain their incumbency advantage, and, contrary to all the polls, the SNP not only don't break through, but perform just well enough to split the vote and let the Tories through in several seats, let alone failing to win them themselves.
Not massively likely to happen, but a possibility on paper. Can't see them being too happy with say 15 seats, Labour and Lib Dems not overly scathed, and the Tories climbing to say 4 seats - and all because the SNP didn't quite get its vote out *enough*.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That is because they have completely different constitutional systems. Under ours, MPs should not be under the control of someone outside the House.
I'm not sure there is any obvious reason why they shouldn't be, though. Mr Cameron's power over the Conservatives derives from the fact that they elected him, not from his position as an MP.
The practical differences are: in the event of a backbench revolt, Mr Cameron is guaranteed at least one vote in his favour, i.e. his own - which seems bad from the POV of separation of powers; and Mr Cameron experiences a potential conflict between the interests of Witney and the interests of Britain as a whole.
The thing is that party leaders have had to be members of the House of Commons since 1940, when Lord Halifax turned the gig down on the grounds that, as a peer he could not command a majority thereof, thus opening the door to Churchill. That is because to be Prime Minister you have to have control of the House of Commons. For a minor party, things are different. UKIP, the Greens (and IIRC the DUP) have had MPs in the House since 2010 whilst their party leader has been elsewhere. If Doncaster falls to UKIP or Witney to the Lib Dems this time round it would be an issue. But none of the minority parties are likely to do anything more than prop up a government of the big two so it's not an issue unless the Leader says one thing and the Parliamentary Party says another. Ironically, it might matter the most of Clegg loses Sheffield Hallam, in a finely balanced parliament, and is shilling for the Tories, whilst the Parliamentary Lib Dems decide that they might support Ed. Ed could, plausibly, offer a free vote on STV - let's face it we could have UKIP on 14% and 3 seats, the Greens on 6% and 1 seat and the SNP on 5% and 50-something seats - which would be interesting and might leave Clegg impotently calling for a deal with the Tories whilst the Parliamentary Party agree a confidence and supply motion.
But any such scenario is a problem for the minor parties. Not for the Government of the Realm.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
FWIW, as an amateur psephologist I genuinely think there's a chance the Tories are going to finish the night with up to 3 seats in Scotland, regardless of the SNP sweeping the board elsewhere, just on the principle of uniform swing never happening in reality. I'd go for Galloway Tweeddale and Clydesdale as a hold, The Borders as a gain, and Stirling as an outsider gain to watch.
But what do I know?!
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That is because they have completely different constitutional systems. Under ours, MPs should not be under the control of someone outside the House.
I'm not sure there is any obvious reason why they shouldn't be, though. Mr Cameron's power over the Conservatives derives from the fact that they elected him, not from his position as an MP.
The practical differences are: in the event of a backbench revolt, Mr Cameron is guaranteed at least one vote in his favour, i.e. his own - which seems bad from the POV of separation of powers; and Mr Cameron experiences a potential conflict between the interests of Witney and the interests of Britain as a whole.
The thing is that party leaders have had to be members of the House of Commons since 1940, when Lord Halifax turned the gig down on the grounds that, as a peer he could not command a majority thereof, thus opening the door to Churchill. That is because to be Prime Minister you have to have control of the House of Commons. For a minor party, things are different. UKIP, the Greens (and IIRC the DUP) have had MPs in the House since 2010 whilst their party leader has been elsewhere. If Doncaster falls to UKIP or Witney to the Lib Dems this time round it would be an issue. But none of the minority parties are likely to do anything more than prop up a government of the big two so it's not an issue unless the Leader says one thing and the Parliamentary Party says another. Ironically, it might matter the most of Clegg loses Sheffield Hallam, in a finely balanced parliament, and is shilling for the Tories, whilst the Parliamentary Lib Dems decide that they might support Ed. Ed could, plausibly, offer a free vote on STV - let's face it we could have UKIP on 14% and 3 seats, the Greens on 6% and 1 seat and the SNP on 5% and 50-something seats - which would be interesting and might leave Clegg impotently calling for a deal with the Tories whilst the Parliamentary Party agree a confidence and supply motion.
But any such scenario is a problem for the minor parties. Not for the Government of the Realm.
In those circumstances I can see the Tories doing a "Nixon goes to China" and offering STV+ themselves. Students of Trollope may recognise that as exactly the sort of stunt Mr Gresham would pull.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
And I'm going for the strong possibility that Cameron will be PM again. <makes throat slitting gesture> Remember me as someone who loved not holily but highlily.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That is because they have completely different constitutional systems. Under ours, MPs should not be under the control of someone outside the House.
I'm not sure there is any obvious reason why they shouldn't be, though. Mr Cameron's power over the Conservatives derives from the fact that they elected him, not from his position as an MP.
The practical differences are: in the event of a backbench revolt, Mr Cameron is guaranteed at least one vote in his favour, i.e. his own - which seems bad from the POV of separation of powers; and Mr Cameron experiences a potential conflict between the interests of Witney and the interests of Britain as a whole.
The thing is that party leaders have had to be members of the House of Commons since 1940, when Lord Halifax turned the gig down on the grounds that, as a peer he could not command a majority thereof, thus opening the door to Churchill. That is because to be Prime Minister you have to have control of the House of Commons. For a minor party, things are different. UKIP, the Greens (and IIRC the DUP) have had MPs in the House since 2010 whilst their party leader has been elsewhere. If Doncaster falls to UKIP or Witney to the Lib Dems this time round it would be an issue. But none of the minority parties are likely to do anything more than prop up a government of the big two so it's not an issue unless the Leader says one thing and the Parliamentary Party says another. Ironically, it might matter the most of Clegg loses Sheffield Hallam, in a finely balanced parliament, and is shilling for the Tories, whilst the Parliamentary Lib Dems decide that they might support Ed. Ed could, plausibly, offer a free vote on STV - let's face it we could have UKIP on 14% and 3 seats, the Greens on 6% and 1 seat and the SNP on 5% and 50-something seats - which would be interesting and might leave Clegg impotently calling for a deal with the Tories whilst the Parliamentary Party agree a confidence and supply motion.
But any such scenario is a problem for the minor parties. Not for the Government of the Realm.
In those circumstances I can see the Tories doing a "Nixon goes to China" and offering STV+ themselves. Students of Trollope may recognise that as exactly the sort of stunt Mr Gresham would pull.
Given the Tories historical attitude to FPTP, I would be surprised. And I can't see the SNP voting for a measure which would reduce them from an overwhelming majority to a 'more or less' majority. But, given how things have worked out since 2010, it would be a brave man, or woman, who announced that they knew exactly how things would pan out. Stranger things have happened!
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
An interesting possibility is that this really is an election to lose. If Labour + SNP can't form a majority coalition and neither can Conservative + Lib Dem (+DUP?), then we may well end up with a minority government that doesn't last beyond the summer.
If so, then I think we might see a reversion back to two party politics. i.e. if we end up with a minority Conservative government, then at another election in the autumn, SNP voters may well turn back to Labour tactically. Or if Labour form a minority government for a few months, then the right wingers will coalesce around the Tories and see them take a majority later in the year.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Sipech, can we have another election in the autumn? Under the fixed term election thing that Cameron introduced, don't we have to wait for five years until we can hold another? In which case there could be utter chaos.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
An interesting possibility is that this really is an election to lose. If Labour + SNP can't form a majority coalition and neither can Conservative + Lib Dem (+DUP?), then we may well end up with a minority government that doesn't last beyond the summer.
If so, then I think we might see a reversion back to two party politics. i.e. if we end up with a minority Conservative government, then at another election in the autumn, SNP voters may well turn back to Labour tactically. Or if Labour form a minority government for a few months, then the right wingers will coalesce around the Tories and see them take a majority later in the year.
true, but the spanner in the works is the need to get a majority in the house to repeal the fixed term parliament act and get a second election. That can pretty well only happen if Labour and the Tories join forces, because faced with the entirely plausible scenario you outline, which minority parties are going to willingly vote away their taste of power-amid-the-chaos?
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Sipech, can we have another election in the autumn? Under the fixed term election thing that Cameron introduced, don't we have to wait for five years until we can hold another? In which case there could be utter chaos.
We can. I didn't think we could but I checked with some friends who know more than me (one of whom works in the Cabinet Office).
A vote of no confidence can be held and with a minority government that is always a distinct possibility. If the government doesn't have the confidence of the House of Commons then it must call another election; this supersedes the fixed term parliament.
Otherwise, you could end up with 5 years of no bills ever being passed.
[ 28. April 2015, 15:56: Message edited by: Sipech ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Sipech, can we have another election in the autumn? Under the fixed term election thing that Cameron introduced, don't we have to wait for five years until we can hold another? In which case there could be utter chaos.
We can. I didn't think we could but I checked with some friends who know more than me (one of whom works in the Cabinet Office).
A vote of no confidence can be held and with a minority government that is always a distinct possibility. If the government doesn't have the confidence of the House of Commons then it must call another election; this supersedes the fixed term parliament.
Otherwise, you could end up with 5 years of no bills ever being passed.
Slightly more complicated than that AIUI: the act provides for a 2 week grace period in which the existing government or another group of parties can try to form a new government. If the new government can command the confidence of the house then no new election is required. Say, for example, that Ed gets 300 seats with lib dems on 25 and the SNP on 40. A deal with the lib dems just about allows him to command the confidence of the house until a by-election or two 18 months in depletes either Labour or the lib dems and the SNP join with others to bring down the government hoping to wring a better deal out of Miliband. Miliband would then have to choose between calling the SNP's bluff and going to the country seeking a majority or giving in on a couple of SNP demands and staying in power for the rest of the term. Works the other way around, of course, particularly if the SNP demand a new referendum after the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections and Labour won't permit it.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
My bet is on a minority Labour administration with Lib Dem support. As the Lib Dems are forecast to hold about 25 or so seats, such an arrangement would leave Labour about 30 or so seats short of a majority.
A point that seems to be repeatedly missed is that the SNP are, despite their rhetoric, offering no deals to any parties. They have only "offered" their support to Labour on a vote-by-vote basis, which really means nothing at all. However, they have made it quite clear that they won't support the Tories. They are obliged to do this: if they did, their new-found support in central Scotland would evaporate. This makes it most unlikely that the SNP are going to vote against Labour on a confidence motion. The SNP are also going to be very wary of being seen as wreckers.
It's great news for Labour. It means they have already won this election.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
... It's great news for Labour. It means they have already won this election.
On that basis, they won't have done. They may be able to form an administration, but they will no more have 'won the election' than the Conservatives did in 2010.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Also, the Tories are counting on a late swing, and recent polls indicate there may be one coming along. Tense, nervous headache?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, the Tories are counting on a late swing, and recent polls indicate there may be one coming along. Tense, nervous headache?
Having just returned from a few days campaigning for the Conservatives in a marginal constituency in the north of England, I found it interesting that a lot of voters are still undecided, so there's all to play for.
The Conservatives' line about the spectre of a Labour/SNP pact is also starting to achieve 'cut through' (to use the buzz phrase) and people in suburbia are worried.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Having just returned from a few days campaigning for the Conservatives in a marginal constituency in the north of England, I found it interesting that a lot of voters are still undecided, so there's all to play for.
The Conservatives' line about the spectre of a Labour/SNP pact is also starting to achieve 'cut through' (to use the buzz phrase) and people in suburbia are worried.
Depends how north you went. Up here, a Labour/SNP pact would be a preferred outcome.
(edited for code)
[ 28. April 2015, 19:53: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Having just returned from a few days campaigning for the Conservatives in a marginal constituency in the north of England, I found it interesting that a lot of voters are still undecided, so there's all to play for.
Doesn't undecided quite often mean "too polite to tell the canvasser for the tories that they're voting Labour"?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Depends how north you went. Up here, a Labour/SNP pact would be a preferred outcome.
In the same region of England as you.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Doesn't undecided quite often mean "too polite to tell the canvasser for the tories that they're voting Labour"?
Not impossible, sure, but many of the undecideds I met seemed to be genuine. I've found that voters who are against often just say 'not interested' and close the door on you.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Depends how north you went. Up here, a Labour/SNP pact would be a preferred outcome.
In the same region of England as you.
Well, good luck with that. I think you're on a hiding to nothing. Perhaps I just hang out with lefties, but several of them would rather vote SNP than Labour (including me), and if the Scots want to annex the ancient kingdom of Northumbria, there'll be fewer complaints than you might imagine.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Depends how north you went. Up here, a Labour/SNP pact would be a preferred outcome.
In the same region of England as you.
Perhaps I just hang out with lefties
Potentially, I've just been up Wooler way, and Berwick (the constituency rather than the town) is blue in all but name - just happens to have had a good Liberal member for a couple of decades. Not much call for Labour or the SNP in the Cheviots IME (or circle).
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
And Hexham (the constituency) - which along with Berwick is as far north as you can get in England - is solid blue.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I appreciate this. It's a failure of imagination on my part (in that I struggle to understand why anyone votes Tory).
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, good luck with that. I think you're on a hiding to nothing.
Thanks ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'll let you know how things go on.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, the Tories are counting on a late swing, and recent polls indicate there may be one coming along. Tense, nervous headache?
Something gives me a feeling the Tory campaign is like that of a long distance runner who has the late sprint timed perfectly. It's difficult to see Milli's-band being able to throw down a banana skin at this stage to upset a, ISTM, fairly predictable outcome to next week's Poll.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The growth figures, depending on how they get played, are ... troubling for the Tories.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... if the Scots want to annex the ancient kingdom of Northumbria, there'll be fewer complaints than you might imagine.
That's fightin' talk. Some of us still hold a grudge for them stealing our women and having their wicked way with our sheep.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, the Tories are counting on a late swing, and recent polls indicate there may be one coming along. Tense, nervous headache?
Something gives me a feeling the Tory campaign is like that of a long distance runner who has the late sprint timed perfectly. It's difficult to see Milli's-band being able to throw down a banana skin at this stage to upset a, ISTM, fairly predictable outcome to next week's Poll.
Really? The Tories look to me to be scraping the bottom of all sorts of barrels (Read my lips. No new taxes! We'll vote with the SNP against the renewal of Trident if we don't get in! Dodgy letters to the HSBC Torygraph! IT MAKES ME PUMPED!). Meanwhile Labour are doing OKish but not well enough to win. And whatever happens the SNP have got large tracts of Scotland in the bag. My gut instinct says that Miliband will probably lurch over the finishing line, just. The bit of me that distrusts gut instincts says that the whole thing is simply to close to call. Too many undecideds and, how effective is a polling system designed with the three main parties in mind at evaluating the level of support in a seven party system?
Too close to call.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, the Tories are counting on a late swing, and recent polls indicate there may be one coming along. Tense, nervous headache?
Something gives me a feeling the Tory campaign is like that of a long distance runner who has the late sprint timed perfectly. It's difficult to see Milli's-band being able to throw down a banana skin at this stage to upset a, ISTM, fairly predictable outcome to next week's Poll.
Really? The Tories look to me to be scraping the bottom of all sorts of barrels (Read my lips. No new taxes! We'll vote with the SNP against the renewal of Trident if we don't get in! Dodgy letters to the HSBC Torygraph! IT MAKES ME PUMPED!). Meanwhile Labour are doing OKish but not well enough to win. And whatever happens the SNP have got large tracts of Scotland in the bag. My gut instinct says that Miliband will probably lurch over the finishing line, just. The bit of me that distrusts gut instincts says that the whole thing is simply to close to call. Too many undecideds and, how effective is a polling system designed with the three main parties in mind at evaluating the level of support in a seven party system?
Too close to call.
Definitely too close to call - but on your last point next week is likely to validate one way or the other which polling methodology actually works.
AIUI online methodologies are putting it neck and neck with one party occasionally drawing ahead but then swapping with the other. Telephone methodologies have spent the last week or two putting the Tories consistently anywhere between 1 and 6 points ahead.
As someone who does work in the research industry, although not political research, I'm genuinely watching with interest precisely because polling these days isn't voodoo, and it does work frighteningly well. Basically next week we're going to find out which companies have got their methodology very wrong indeed.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
My impression from conversations with friends is that Labour would have a much better chance of picking up the "undecideds" if Ed wasn't their leader. People just don't see (or want) him as PM.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Basically next week we're going to find out which companies have got their methodology very wrong indeed.
I'd expect that with things being so very close that even a very small flaw in methodologies can result in a prediction that's significantly different from what we'll find out with the end of the count next Friday. Unless, of course, there's a massive landslide in which case everyone's methodology is very wrong indeed.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Basically next week we're going to find out which companies have got their methodology very wrong indeed.
I'd expect that with things being so very close that even a very small flaw in methodologies can result in a prediction that's significantly different from what we'll find out with the end of the count next Friday. Unless, of course, there's a massive landslide in which case everyone's methodology is very wrong indeed.
Well, tbh I was thinking more along the lines of say the most likely people to vote don't go online for whatever reason - then the telephone polls end up more accurate and they know next time that online-only isn't adequate. Or vice versa. Small flaws within the margin of error can as you say, have big impacts.
But I'm talking about looking back at the tab data (which is usually available) and it being visible that a company or set of companies has actually got their approach wrong. But then I'm a fan generally of mixed methodologies anyway.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought that Nate Silver has said that phone polls are (slightly) more accurate, but I don't have a link.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... how effective is a polling system designed with the three main parties in mind at evaluating the level of support in a seven party system? ...
The polling system wasn't 'designed'. It just happened. It only works if there are only two effective parties and most people are at least passively in sympathy with one or the other, as there were prior to 1910 and for 25 years between 1945 and 1970.
It endures because it always favours those who have won. So they aren't going to change it.
As I've said in these threads before, any electoral system that can give a party an overall majority on 35% of the vote as happened in 2005, is seriously defective. Although once the election was over, people seem to have forgotten that, it was responsible for a lot of the political tensions of the years that administration was in office. An administration that has forgotten that two points short of ⅔ of the population voted for someone else, has a fool's paradise of a mandate, a delusion of legitimacy.
On May 8th, it is important that whatever is cobbled together is based on some package of actual support, rather than that electoral delusion.
Marvin, I agree with you about Ed and the undecideds, though I can't see any of their alternatives being more impressive. Ed Balls has hardly been let out recently, and one can sort of see why. As a general principle, there hasn't been much in this election that would draw an undecided through any of the doors. It has struck me that in the various debates, all the leaders etc have mainly inspired their own supporters. There hasn't been much to persuade anyone to change. In some cases, the things about them that their own supporters find so winsome, are precisely those that put everyone else off, viz particularly, Natalie Bennett and Nigel Farage.
I wonder though, whether there's as many 'undecided' as so describe themselves. My suspicion is that a lot of people when it comes to it actually vote the same way as they did last time.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that Nate Silver has said that phone polls are (slightly) more accurate, but I don't have a link.
He did on that programme the other night, and to be honest I buy that - you can do far more in terms of segmentation and weighting on the phone, because everyone's got one and you can do outbound recruitment. Online excludes people and is more passive in recruitment. Having said that, as I say it could be that by doing proper weightings of the sample and their findings the online boys have cracked it and it's the phone agencies that are out of date. We shall see.
In terms of predictions I'm relatively happy to make:
Conservatives to get the plurality of the vote, regardless of how many seats they get.
Conservatives to have a spread of 1-3 seats in Scotland next Friday morning.
Lib Dems to hold up better than anyone currently expects.
SNP to not make as many gains as they think they're going to.
The overall result however is completely anyone's guess.
I will put my hand up on here the day after in terms of reviewing those predictions! The crystal ball is a murky animal...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... how effective is a polling system designed with the three main parties in mind at evaluating the level of support in a seven party system? ...
It endures because it always favours those who have won.
well, except 1992...
To be honest (and again I don't do this for a living so it's not a vested interest talking) polling these days is seriously sophisticated, and there's no particular reason (except that its become a truism) why it shouldn't be able to "cope" with a non bi-partite system. You could argue of course that there is no track record *in the UK* of doing so, but polling companies these days are multinational, and they're not doing it in a vacuum. Multi-party democracies throughout the world manage accurate polling.
Where I would agree with you is the peculiar set-up of the UK making it hard to turn polling percentages into predictions of seats. As I said earlier in the thread, no one in their right mind assumes uniform swing.
However, to an extent this is offset by the fact that pretty comprehensive polling of the marginals does give a fairly accurate view of where they're going to go. The great unknown here is the extent to which at this election "safe" seats are going to change hands.
The papers get very excited by the idea that Scotland is going to turn SNP, the Liberals could be wiped out in the West Country, etc, but my gut feeling is when it comes down to it neither of those things will happen. It seems to me that the most likely person waking up with a headache on Friday morning is going to be Nicola, because she and the press have set expectations so high that really anything but a virtual clean sweep will lead to soul-searching. I've already pointed out my suspicion that the SNP's performance is actually going to help let the Tories through in the borders.
I mean, all of the above could be rubbish, but it's possible - and fascinating if you're a politics junkie. I've got the popcorn on order....
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Sorry, I've clearly misunderstood. I interpret debate on 'polling system' as meaning debate about how people actually do vote and elect, a serious matter, not debate about the merits and weaknesses of various ways of trying to guess how they are going to elect, a relatively trivial matter.
On the latter, there's a good case IMHO for following the practice of some other countries and closing down the entire opinion poll industry for the election season.
Apart from the obvious fact that they can't all be right, it would also mean that the politicians would present their wares, rather than just try to fine tune them to what pollsters are saying.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I interpret debate on 'polling system' as meaning debate about how people actually do vote and elect, a serious matter, not debate about the merits and weaknesses of various ways of trying to guess how they are going to elect, a relatively trivial matter.
My interpretation is actually in the middle of that choice - debate about the merits and weaknesses of trying to guess how people actually do vote and elect. Or rather, the consequences (foreseen, unforeseen or indeed lack of) of those votes in a non-proportional system.
Which can be, and is, done. And is a serious matter. If nothing else ramming this point home every election campaign is the clearest argument I know for electoral reform.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... how effective is a polling system designed with the three main parties in mind at evaluating the level of support in a seven party system? ...
The polling system wasn't 'designed'. It just happened. It only works if there are only two effective parties and most people are at least passively in sympathy with one or the other, as there were prior to 1910 and for 25 years between 1945 and 1970.
It endures because it always favours those who have won. So they aren't going to change it.
As I've said in these threads before, any electoral system that can give a party an overall majority on 35% of the vote as happened in 2005, is seriously defective. Although once the election was over, people seem to have forgotten that, it was responsible for a lot of the political tensions of the years that administration was in office. An administration that has forgotten that two points short of ⅔ of the population voted for someone else, has a fool's paradise of a mandate, a delusion of legitimacy.
On May 8th, it is important that whatever is cobbled together is based on some package of actual support, rather than that electoral delusion.
I think you are talking about the electoral system, not polling. My point was that figures for UKIP support at present have a variation of 7% of the electorate and variations in Tory and Labour support is on the 6% mark. Now it might be that if you add all the polls up and split the difference you are there or thereabouts or it might be that one of the outliers is on the money. If Labour get 36% and UKIP get 18% the Tories then it's All Hail Ed. If Labour get 30% and UKIP get 11% then Dave is a genius and Lord Of All He Surveys. If one of the median pollsters is correct then its all a bit messy but we will probably end up with Ed and Nicola coming to an understanding. At the moment none of those possibilities is inherently implausible. None of the polls are showing much variation so there is no statistically significant trend, thus far, to either Conservative or Labour. Which offers us a range of possibilities between triumph and disaster, depending on who you support. Hence my caution.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My impression from conversations with friends is that Labour would have a much better chance of picking up the "undecideds" if Ed wasn't their leader. People just don't see (or want) him as PM.
I don't know about that. I think #Milifandom is doing rather better than the #Cameronettes.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry, I've clearly misunderstood. I interpret debate on 'polling system' as meaning debate about how people actually do vote and elect, a serious matter, not debate about the merits and weaknesses of various ways of trying to guess how they are going to elect, a relatively trivial matter.
Perhaps the opinion polling industry will start to clamour that FPTP creates a situation where they are unable to make accurate predictions of what an election result, and therefore demand that we change to a more rational electoral system.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
A related subject. Back in 2010 the Press all seemed to regard Coalition as a remarkably novel idea - even though we have had Coalitions in the past. Today there seems to be a general realisation that we will end up after the election with a Coalition, a hung Parliament or a minority Government. This scenario is being presented by at least Cameron and Miliband as a disaster.
Yet in much of Europe - and almost inevitably under a PR voting system - this kind of situation is regarded as normal. The countries concerned (with perhaps the exception of Belgium) don't collapse and the politicians make a go of things. They may even start working co-operatively!
I do realise that, in this kind of situation, tiny parties can wield disproportionate power. But the same can be true within our system - back in the 70s the Ulster Unionists had to be kept on side at all costs. I also realise that this kind of Government can find it hard to make bold decisions.
But, on the other hand, a Parliament of this kind is more likely IMO to reflect the desires of the populace. So why are our leaders so frightened of it? Is it because their individual power is likely to diminish? Or what?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Presumably, the main parties still envisage a future with solid majorities, or even landslides, and that may well happen again. As it is, in a safe seat one is in effect disenfranchised. That would be me, in fact.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
There's a new poll, run by Scottish TV and IpsoMori, indicating a possible clean sweep for the SNP. Every. Single. Seat.
FPTP... ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, the main parties still envisage a future with solid majorities, or even landslides, and that may well happen again. As it is, in a safe seat one is in effect disenfranchised. That would be me, in fact.
The answer to that is open primaries, which the US have had for years. The one occasion where it has been tried in the UK, in Totnes, led to the selection of the admirable Dr Sarah Wollaston as the local MP who is a vast improvement (a low bar, but she clears it with room to spare) over her two most recent predecessors.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's a new poll, run by Scottish TV and IpsoMori, indicating a possible clean sweep for the SNP. Every. Single. Seat.
FPTP...
Having just had a wee look at that poll
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318815-stvipsos-mori-poll-snp-set-to-win-all-scots-seats-at-general-election/
I'd make 2 observations:
1) it's a pan-Scotland poll, not a poll of marginals, which means it's assuming a result based on uniform swing - and I'm sorry to sound like a stuck record but Never Assume A Uniform Swing.
2) It shows the Tory vote has held up to 2010 levels at 17% of the vote.
From which I draw 2 conclusions tentatively:
1) This doesn't mean that it's actually going to happen.
2) If it doesn't happen, and the SNP perform strongly but don't go all the way whilst the Tory vote holds up then it's more ammunition for my hunch that the SNP are going to help the Tories to a spread of 1-4 Scottish seats next Friday morning. There are several seats where they are a very close second that splitting the vote on the Liberal/Labour incumbent could be *very* helpful for Dave and his chums.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's a new poll, run by Scottish TV and IpsoMori, indicating a possible clean sweep for the SNP. Every. Single. Seat.
FPTP...
Yes, I saw that. I doubt if anyone can estimate the possible consequences of this; I don't mean in terms of coalitions and so on, but the shifting of the tectonic plates. Although maybe England will be unaffected, who knows.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, the main parties still envisage a future with solid majorities, or even landslides, and that may well happen again. As it is, in a safe seat one is in effect disenfranchised. That would be me, in fact.
The answer to that is open primaries, which the US have had for years. The one occasion where it has been tried in the UK, in Totnes, led to the selection of the admirable Dr Sarah Wollaston as the local MP who is a vast improvement (a low bar, but she clears it with room to spare) over her two most recent predecessors.
According to Wiki, the Tories actually used them for 2 candidates in 2012, and have used it for "at least 12" of their candidates for next week. A drop in the ocean, but one that seems to be gathering pace. Now they just need the other parties to join them.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A related subject. Back in 2010 the Press all seemed to regard Coalition as a remarkably novel idea - even though we have had Coalitions in the past. Today there seems to be a general realisation that we will end up after the election with a Coalition, a hung Parliament or a minority Government. This scenario is being presented by at least Cameron and Miliband as a disaster.
Yet in much of Europe - and almost inevitably under a PR voting system - this kind of situation is regarded as normal. The countries concerned (with perhaps the exception of Belgium) don't collapse and the politicians make a go of things. They may even start working co-operatively!
I do realise that, in this kind of situation, tiny parties can wield disproportionate power. But the same can be true within our system - back in the 70s the Ulster Unionists had to be kept on side at all costs. I also realise that this kind of Government can find it hard to make bold decisions.
But, on the other hand, a Parliament of this kind is more likely IMO to reflect the desires of the populace. So why are our leaders so frightened of it? Is it because their individual power is likely to diminish? Or what?
As always there are self-interested arguments against coalitions - The Tories are haunted by a folk memory of Margaret Thatcher using her majority to pursue a policy of radical reform, Labour by the memory of the Sainted Attlee and the Not So Sainted Blair. In what passes for the depths of their solemn little souls most party activists are quite tribal, hence the joke about q) you are on top of a mountain with a Conservative and a Lib Dem. Which one do you push off first? a) The Conservative - business before pleasure. (I have heard the same version mutatis mutandis from Tories so dismount that high horse at once.)
The more reputable argument against coalition is that you vote for a party, with a manifesto, for specific policies and then a bunch of politicians vanish into a back room and come out announcing that the country will follow the following prospectus which no-one voted for. Also, once upon a time, people thought it would give the Alliance or the Lib Dems a permanent position in government, akin to that of the FDP in Germany for many years. (That argument has pretty much gone the way of the FDP, for various reasons but the Tories, cynically, used it to nix the AV Referendum.) Finally, some of the smaller parties are, shall we say, focused on a single issue and having them holding the balance of power might lead to the government of the UK being conducted through the prism of that particular issue.
I support PR, as it happens, and two hung parliaments in a row are hardly a striking argument for the alleged decisiveness of FPTP but no reform ever comes without pluses and minuses.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Some of the smaller parties are, shall we say, focused on a single issue.
Surely not!
On balance, I think that PR is more likely to give us a representative Parliament than FPTP; the gains outweigh the dangers.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I agree, and it would give me a meaningful vote, which at present, it isn't. I think Brand is half-right, there is no point in me voting in a seat with a 5 figure majority.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
If SNP win all seats, does this help Labour? Possibly, in terms of unofficial deals, but it might also frighten people back to the Tories. What would Labour need, about 260 seats? Watch the Daily Mail, illegitimate!
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If SNP win all seats, does this help Labour? Possibly, in terms of unofficial deals, but it might also frighten people back to the Tories. What would Labour need, about 260 seats? Watch the Daily Mail, illegitimate!
The Daily Mail can scream "illegitimate" all it likes. The rules of the game are that whoever can form a viable administration, based on the complosition of the House of Commons, gets to be Prime Minister. If that is Labour, with the tacit consent of the SNP, that is Labour with the tacit consent of the SNP. (And the same would be true - Good Lord Deliver Us - if the government were the Tories, UKIP and the DUP. The only way round the matter would be for Her Majesty and the army to step in. There is no way that a government could be formed, without the confidence of the House of Commons, on the grounds that Paul Dacre didn't much like the alternative.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
A handy guide to tactical voting.
For every single seat in Scotland the advice is the same "Vote for anybody except the SNP" regardless of whether you want to keep Labour or the Conservatives out.
Want Cameron as your next PM? Vote Labour! (but not SNP). Want Miliband? Vote Conservative! (but not SNP).
Does the Telegraph not realise that this sort of thing is a gift to the SNP as it whizzes round on social media?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If SNP win all seats, does this help Labour? Possibly, in terms of unofficial deals, but it might also frighten people back to the Tories. What would Labour need, about 260 seats? Watch the Daily Mail, illegitimate!
The Daily Mail can scream "illegitimate" all it likes. The rules of the game are that whoever can form a viable administration, based on the complosition of the House of Commons, gets to be Prime Minister. If that is Labour, with the tacit consent of the SNP, that is Labour with the tacit consent of the SNP. (And the same would be true - Good Lord Deliver Us - if the government were the Tories, UKIP and the DUP. The only way round the matter would be for Her Majesty and the army to step in. There is no way that a government could be formed, without the confidence of the House of Commons, on the grounds that Paul Dacre didn't much like the alternative.
Yeah, but it would be great theatre to see the Tories and the right-wing press in hue and cry after a minority Labour govt. I suspect that Miliband would be well up for it, the guy is a fighter. It could go either way, it might collapse amidst mutual recrimination, or last 5 years.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, the main parties still envisage a future with solid majorities, or even landslides, and that may well happen again. As it is, in a safe seat one is in effect disenfranchised. That would be me, in fact.
And me. And my MP, whom I initially thought of as a decent man*, despite his party, has been disgracing himself of late and talking like a Ukipper.
*This was also Milliband's description after he had been verbally attacked by the man.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Can someone explain to me what possible benefits there would be in our political system in having primaries of any sort?
And, if an open primary means - incidentally, is that what it does mean? - that the public at large get invited to vote for who the Conservatives, Labour or whoever put up in a constituency, why would I want to vote or be asked to vote, in a private election to chose what candidate stands for a party I'm not not going to vote for. Wouldn't it be in my interest to vote for the most unattractive candidate, the one that I think is least likely to persuade people to vote for them?
As daft ideas go, this must be a front runner.
As for the argument "The rules of the game are that whoever can form a viable administration, based on the composition of the House of Commons, gets to be Prime Minister." that's the whole point. This is not a game. This is our government.
A chance, random and unrepresentative permutation of votes should not deliver to any faction of politicians the right to impose their will on a public just short of two thirds of whom did not vote for them. That is a negation of any legitimate meaning the words 'representative government' and 'mandate' should have.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Rather than passing into law a meaningless statute regarding which taxes can and can't be raised, how about a law which states that a government must have the confidence of at least 50% of the electorate?
An easy-ish way of achieving this would be to have single-member constituencies elected by STV - then each MP would have to have at least half the votes, first or transferred, of the voters.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Can someone explain to me what possible benefits there would be in our political system in having primaries of any sort?
And, if an open primary means - incidentally, is that what it does mean? - that the public at large get invited to vote for who the Conservatives, Labour or whoever put up in a constituency, why would I want to vote or be asked to vote, in a private election to chose what candidate stands for a party I'm not not going to vote for.
In a party system, it seems to me that the party candidate has to be chosen by the members of that party. The electorate then gets to have their say on the choice put before them. I suppose that under some form of STV there's no reason why a party can't put forward two candidates and see which one the electorate prefer, but run the risk of splitting their vote and both getting knocked out of the running early in the vote tallying and transferring process.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And, if an open primary means - incidentally, is that what it does mean? - that the public at large get invited to vote for who the Conservatives, Labour or whoever put up in a constituency
Yes, that's what it means. An actual American will have to enlighten you on the legislation that requires primaries (AFAIK only for the big two, and not for the minor parties), but you have the idea.
Most people are not "members" of the Republican or Democratic parties. In states with "closed" primaries, you can register as an R or D voter (the state voter registration form also lets you select party affiliation) and that entitles you to vote in that party's primary election. It doesn't cost you money or otherwise obligate you, so some people do tactically register as a voter for the "other" party in order to influence their primary process (either to choose the least bad option, or to choose an unelectable candidate...)
With an open primary, you can show up on the day and vote. I don't know whether any states let you vote in both party's primaries, though.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
I don't see the point of open primaries, but "primaries" certainly exist in Westminster sytems in the form of contested nominations, or mandatory re-selection if you live in Blightly.
In Canada the federal election scene has turned remarkably competitive for the October 2015 General Election; 1 out every 3 nominations for non-incumbent parties in each riding has been contested so far since races started in late 2015. My Riding Association (NDP) had its first contested nomination in 10 years. It's a great way to double your membership.
For most parties in Canada, you have to pay ~$10 for a yearly membership fee, and in the case of the NDP sign our Anti-Red Pledge (be neither a Liberal nor a Communist).
The federal Liberal Party even dispensed with the membership fee for Trudeau-fils coronation, calling such enrollees 'Supporters', but being a Liberal Supporter will still get you the boot from the NDP under the Anti-Red Pledge.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I think one advantage of open primaries is that it allows the natural supporters of a party have their say on the candidate, rather than limiting that say to the relatively small number of paid-up members of the party.
If that decision is limited just to the paid-up members that's a form of dis-enfranchisement for those for who even a $10 annual membership fee would be a considerable investment, not to mention the time commitment that membership or active support of a party would often entail.
On the other hand, an open primary could result in the selection of a candidate that those who will actually be actively campaigning for may not have prefered.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
In the US, voting in a closed primary does not entail any commitment of time or money for party membership - it just requires the voter state a party affiliation, typically prior to an election (details of registration requirements differ from state to state.)
In an open primary voters can choose to select a party ballot regardless of prior stated affiliation. In Massachusetts, primaries are partly open - if you've registered with a party affiliation, you can only vote for the candidates on your party's primary ballot, but if you are "unenrolled" (registered to vote but not affiliated) you can choose which party's ballot to receive on election day. (It used to be that choosing a party's primary ballot then automatically affiliated you with that party, but now unenrolled voters stay unenrolled even after voting in a primary.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I've probably mis-used the term "open primary", I was thinking more of the candidate selection being open beyond paid-up party members. In that sense the US system, whether affiliation is declared in advance or when the voter turns up at the polling stattion, is 'open' in comparison to the UK system where candidate selection happens within the party (paid) membership.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Apart from everything else - and nothing that anyone has said about them so far has suggested that they have any merit or anything to offer - isn't this a breach of the principles of a secret ballot, and that who we vote for is our business and no one else's. And what happens about the many people whose jobs preclude them from displaying any political allegiance.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Apart from everything else - and nothing that anyone has said about them so far has suggested that they have any merit or anything to offer - isn't this a breach of the principles of a secret ballot, and that who we vote for is our business and no one else's. And what happens about the many people whose jobs preclude them from displaying any political allegiance.
No, it doesn't breach the principles of a secret ballot, because it's not the ballot itself. In reality, the chances of the opposition skewing it to get you to run the weakest candidate against them is neutralised your opportunity to do the same to them (assuming they're having an open primary too).
If you live in a safe Tory seat, for example, you can continue to vote for whoever you want at the election itself, but this is an opportunity to vote for the sort of Tory you can live with (for example a Ken Clarke vs David Davis vs Michael Heseltine vs Sarah Wollaston) to be the candidate in your safe seat, regardless of the fact you then go and vote Labour/Green/whatever.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
On the downside, it means another occasion when you need to get the electorate out and voting. It's hard enough to do that already, without asking them to come out and vote when it isn't even for who will be their MP.
You could always combine the 'primary' with the actual vote. Have each party put one or more names on the ballot, then run the election by STV. People who want, say, a Tory on principal will vote for the Tory candidates in order of their preference. People who like a particular Tory will vote accordingly, but put other candidates for other parties above the Tories they dislike. In a safe Tory seat you'll still get a Tory MP, but the electorate has direct say over which particular Tory is their MP.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
As for the argument "The rules of the game are that whoever can form a viable administration, based on the composition of the House of Commons, gets to be Prime Minister." that's the whole point. This is not a game. This is our government.
A chance, random and unrepresentative permutation of votes should not deliver to any faction of politicians the right to impose their will on a public just short of two thirds of whom did not vote for them. That is a negation of any legitimate meaning the words 'representative government' and 'mandate' should have.
Have you not been paying attention for the last 300-odd years? In the UK you elect a member of parliament. The Queen invites one of those members of Parliament to form a majority - usually the leader of the largest political party. As long as that person can command the support of the House they are Prime Minister. When they lose the support of the House (or their own Parliamentary Party, or decide they have had enough) they cease to be Prime Minister. The only way to change that is to pass legislation altering the way the country is governed. To do so, of course, requires that you command a majority in the House of Commons. So, as things stand, if Mr Miliband can push through government business with the support of the SNP and Mr Cameron cannot then he gets to be Prime Minister and if Mr Cameron commands a majority in the House and Mr Miliband cannot the same applies.
In the event that an arrangement is made between Mr Miliband and Ms Sturgeon their parties will command something like 40% of the vote (same as Blair in 2001) and pretty much everyone who has voted SNP has done so on the understanding her troops would vote for a Labour Queen's Speech. I'm not sure why this arrangement is more illicit than Mr Clegg running on a platform of opposing austerity before coalescing with Mr Cameron to implement it.
I don't have much time for the SNP but if they win something like 50 seats in Scotland and hold the balance of power in a hung parliament then they, and the people who voted for them, are entitled to be taken seriously.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
I despair. I don't want to vote for any of the eight candidates in my constituency.
I've either got ideological problems with the party or I think they're fiscally irresponsible, or both.
I don't want to vote for the sitting MP, but nor do I want the seat to go to the SNP, who are looking likely to take it. And it feels like anything else will be a wasted vote...
AAAARGH.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I don't have much time for the SNP but if they win something like 50 seats in Scotland and hold the balance of power in a hung parliament then they, and the people who voted for them, are entitled to be taken seriously.
It will mean a considerable swing to the left in UK politics, which - for me - is great news. Maybe the Greens will join them too?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the downside, it means another occasion when you need to get the electorate out and voting. It's hard enough to do that already, without asking them to come out and vote when it isn't even for who will be their MP.
You could always combine the 'primary' with the actual vote. Have each party put one or more names on the ballot, then run the election by STV. People who want, say, a Tory on principal will vote for the Tory candidates in order of their preference. People who like a particular Tory will vote accordingly, but put other candidates for other parties above the Tories they dislike. In a safe Tory seat you'll still get a Tory MP, but the electorate has direct say over which particular Tory is their MP.
Like I said earlier, Nixon going to China - don't bet against it being the Tories that eventually deliver electoral reform - there is a growing movement in blues of my acquaintance for STV+.
My own personal take on things is that I'd like the UK to pinch the Irish system (sorry, copy, can't leave them without a system). Keep your safe seats, but sack the idiot occupying it and swap for someone else - sack the man not the party, or sack both, but at least the former becomes an option.
But STV+ all the way for me.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
On the question of legitimacy according to percentage of vote, national turnout in 2010 was 65%, so that's one third of the electorate nobody can claim to represent (except perhaps Russell Brand?) Whether turnout would automatically improve with a switch to a different voting mechanism, who knows...
There's a good piece here
"Head of Legal"
That points out how Ed can become PM without needing any commitments from anyone else.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
On the question of legitimacy according to percentage of vote, national turnout in 2010 was 65%, so that's one third of the electorate nobody can claim to represent (except perhaps Russell Brand?) Whether turnout would automatically improve with a switch to a different voting mechanism, who knows...
There's a good piece here
"Head of Legal"
That points out how Ed can become PM without needing any commitments from anyone else.
If you don't vote you implicitly accept the choices of those who do. People who don't vote include Maoists, religious sectarians, people who couldn't be arsed, people who think whoever you vote for the government get in, people who had other things to do on the day and knew which way their seat would go anyway and so on and so forth. The idea that this constitutes a coherent bloc of principle, let alone that it anoints Mr Russell Brand as the Tribune Of The Plebs is somewhat far fetched.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think anybody doubts that if Cameron can't form a govt, then Miliband is next (assuming Tories are the largest party). The squawk of illegitimacy may go up in the right-wing press, but they get most things wrong.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
https://gritdigital.co.uk/infographics/uk-general-election/#2015-opinion-poll
This is an interesting link. It's a live opinion poll in which you can cast an 'anonymous' vote. I think being social media based it is probably highly biased but a talking point nonetheless.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
We've been talking a little bit about that poll over on the Election thread in The Circus , if that's of interest. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Suppose the Tories are the largest party after the election, but well short of an outright majority (my own prediction). Would any party want to form a coalition with them? The Libs were well and truly shafted from day one, so I can't see anybody willing to take the risk of going in with them.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Suppose the Tories are the largest party after the election, but well short of an outright majority (my own prediction). Would any party want to form a coalition with them? The Libs were well and truly shafted from day one, so I can't see anybody willing to take the risk of going in with them.
No. And it's perfectly possible for an "everyone except the DUP, UKIP and the Tories" arrangement to enable Miliband to form an administration. He doesn't need a majority, nor even to lead the largest party to do this; he just needs to be able to survive a vote of no confidence and get the Queen's Speech through, AIUI.
Personally, I think this is the most likely outcome next week, although I suspect Miliband will in fact have a slightly higher number of seats than Cameron.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Suppose the Tories are the largest party after the election, but well short of an outright majority (my own prediction). Would any party want to form a coalition with them? The Libs were well and truly shafted from day one, so I can't see anybody willing to take the risk of going in with them.
I suppose what worries me is it's possible next week for the Tories to have a majority of the seats in England, and the plurality of the overall vote... How long's a government going to last that *doesn't* include them, in the teeth of the press at its finest?
And before someone says, "well the SNP could have every seat in Scotland and be ignored, why's it different?" - because the SNP could have every seat in Scotland on 4% of the overall UK vote... Try ignoring what the majority of England might think they've voted for and watch the fireworks - that way chaos lies.
Next week is going to be interesting...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
By the way, I'm still waiting for the data tables behind today's Ipsos-Mori poll that puts the Tories 5 points ahead on a 7 points swing from labour. By my reckoning I think that's the Conservatives ahead by 1-6 points in virtually every poll this week; does anyone really know what's going to happen next week, or is everyone (and I include the pollsters in this) just guessing?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Suppose the Tories are the largest party after the election, but well short of an outright majority (my own prediction). Would any party want to form a coalition with them? The Libs were well and truly shafted from day one, so I can't see anybody willing to take the risk of going in with them.
No. And it's perfectly possible for an "everyone except the DUP, UKIP and the Tories" arrangement to enable Miliband to form an administration. He doesn't need a majority, nor even to lead the largest party to do this; he just needs to be able to survive a vote of no confidence and get the Queen's Speech through, AIUI.
Personally, I think this is the most likely outcome next week, although I suspect Miliband will in fact have a slightly higher number of seats than Cameron.
Miliband may not be as 'vulnerable' as some are painting him should that be the case: all he has to do is say to whatever assortment of the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and the Greens that he needs to have a majority, "either back me up or I'll resign and hand the country over to the Tory-UKIP-DUP axis of evil on the other side of the House - do you really want that?"
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Suppose the Tories are the largest party after the election, but well short of an outright majority (my own prediction). Would any party want to form a coalition with them? The Libs were well and truly shafted from day one, so I can't see anybody willing to take the risk of going in with them.
I suppose what worries me is it's possible next week for the Tories to have a majority of the seats in England, and the plurality of the overall vote... How long's a government going to last that *doesn't* include them, in the teeth of the press at its finest?
And before someone says, "well the SNP could have every seat in Scotland and be ignored, why's it different?" - because the SNP could have every seat in Scotland on 4% of the overall UK vote... Try ignoring what the majority of England might think they've voted for and watch the fireworks - that way chaos lies.
Next week is going to be interesting...
I would think that Labour would cite Churchill in 51, who had fewer votes, but more MPs, or of course, 1924.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Suppose the Tories are the largest party after the election, but well short of an outright majority (my own prediction). Would any party want to form a coalition with them? The Libs were well and truly shafted from day one, so I can't see anybody willing to take the risk of going in with them.
No. And it's perfectly possible for an "everyone except the DUP, UKIP and the Tories" arrangement to enable Miliband to form an administration. He doesn't need a majority, nor even to lead the largest party to do this; he just needs to be able to survive a vote of no confidence and get the Queen's Speech through, AIUI.
Personally, I think this is the most likely outcome next week, although I suspect Miliband will in fact have a slightly higher number of seats than Cameron.
Miliband may not be as 'vulnerable' as some are painting him should that be the case: all he has to do is say to whatever assortment of the SNP, LibDems, Plaid and the Greens that he needs to have a majority, "either back me up or I'll resign and hand the country over to the Tory-UKIP-DUP axis of evil on the other side of the House - do you really want that?"
He doesn't need the LibDems. On current forecasts he can (just) do it with Greens and Nats.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
By the way, I'm still waiting for the data tables behind today's Ipsos-Mori poll that puts the Tories 5 points ahead on a 7 points swing from labour. By my reckoning I think that's the Conservatives ahead by 1-6 points in virtually every poll this week; does anyone really know what's going to happen next week, or is everyone (and I include the pollsters in this) just guessing?
Com Res had a 3 point swing from Labour to Conservative to 35-35. But yeah, I think anything from a Labour majority to a Conservative majority is possible, including all points in between. Lord Ashcroft likes to say that polls are snapshots, not predictions, and I think that is quite right. To coin a cliche, there is but one poll that matters a damn and it's the one on May 7th.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Suppose the Tories are the largest party after the election, but well short of an outright majority (my own prediction). Would any party want to form a coalition with them? The Libs were well and truly shafted from day one, so I can't see anybody willing to take the risk of going in with them.
I suppose what worries me is it's possible next week for the Tories to have a majority of the seats in England, and the plurality of the overall vote... How long's a government going to last that *doesn't* include them, in the teeth of the press at its finest?
And before someone says, "well the SNP could have every seat in Scotland and be ignored, why's it different?" - because the SNP could have every seat in Scotland on 4% of the overall UK vote... Try ignoring what the majority of England might think they've voted for and watch the fireworks - that way chaos lies.
Next week is going to be interesting...
I would think that Labour would cite Churchill in 51, who had fewer votes, but more MPs, or of course, 1924.
True, although I'm sure we can imagine how a 60 or 90 year old precedent will go down with the press in full cry.
One prediction I am relatively confident about making, sadly, is that English nationalism is going to be the story of the next five years.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is also the myth that people don't like second elections, and will punish whoever causes one. Maybe, it's correct, quite a gamble though to bring down a minority govt.
But Cameron may get his late swing, or is getting it now.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is also the myth that people don't like second elections, and will punish whoever causes one. Maybe, it's correct, quite a gamble though to bring down a minority govt.
But Cameron may get his late swing, or is getting it now.
On your minority govt point, true, and of course Cameron gets first go at that so it would be Miliband that had to bring him down. It's quite a gamble to go on as well though, so Dave could duck trying to form one and just throw the towel in.
Personally, my hunch is that Cameron is indeed getting his late swing. But the polls are so febrile that if I was being totally honest I'd have to say I'm suspicious of anyone, including me(!), that claims to have a clue!
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would think that Labour would cite Churchill in 51, who had fewer votes, but more MPs, or of course, 1924.
This election may well look a lot like February 1974, with no two parties able to command a majority, with the Conservatives having slightly more votes than Labour but slightly fewer seats.
The difference between now and 1974 is that whoever forms a minority government does not have the opportunity to go to the public again to shore up his position, as Wilson did in October 1974. In order to generate an early election, a minority government first has to lose a confidence vote, which is a very different dynamic from the small positive swing that Wilson achieved on the back of "we're making progress."
Which I think means that we'll either have 5 years of a minority government, or a no confidence vote the first time something really bad happens, followed by a new election and a change of government.
Which rather makes the question of whether either Cameron or Miliband should want to attempt to form a minority government as rather a two-edged sword.
If (Labour + SNP) have a working majority, there's no choice - Cameron cannot form a successful minority government, and Miliband will have to. Whether that is to his long-term advantage will depend on where the SNP push him, and how that goes down in the English swing seats.
If (Conservative + Lib Dem) keep a majority, Cameron will form a government - either a continuation of the coalition or a minority government, depending on exactly how the numbers look.
Cameron needs his swing, though - in the most likely outcome now (which is that a 4 or 5 party combo is needed for a majority), there would be too many people lining up as anti-Tory for a minority Cameron government to be stable.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Personally, my hunch is that Cameron is indeed getting his late swing. But the polls are so febrile that if I was being totally honest I'd have to say I'm suspicious of anyone, including me(!), that claims to have a clue!
Well, the press has been predicting a swing for weeks without any such things, and turning from indignation to panic as any such thing fails to materialise. Meanwhile the bookies - who presumably have a bit more a stake in such things have been predicting a Labour led government for weeks.
Incidentally, if you really believe that a Labour+SNP government is the recipe for chaos, you really haven't considered what will happen to any Conservative led coalition (or the Conservative party itself) ahead of their promised EU referendum.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
One of the really odd aspects of a close result is that the leaders may end up with no choice. Thus, for example, if Lab + SNP = 330 MPs, Miliband can't really say, oh no, it's frightfully kind of you, but I'd rather the other chap did it. And the Tories would have no majority.
So, it would be surreal if the fascist press, sorry, the Conservative supporting organs of popular reportage, were screaming illegitimate, since nobody could act differently.
I wonder if the Tories are regretting the 5 year fixed term - how hilarious if it gave the dweeb 5 years as PM.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
One commentator did half seriously suggest that the Tories put in a last minute attempt to repeal the FTPA and hope that enough members of the other parties voted for it. That's looking more and more like a missed opportunity to my mind.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Suppose the Tories are the largest party after the election, but well short of an outright majority (my own prediction). Would any party want to form a coalition with them? The Libs were well and truly shafted from day one, so I can't see anybody willing to take the risk of going in with them.
I would like to think this, but surely any Lib Dem MPs who remain in Westminster will be those whose constituents didn't object to them propping up the Tories.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
You can imagine Tory faces if Miliband got 5 years in power because of their law. And if he was popular, another 5! It does seem unlikely, after all, Tories are born to rule, aren't they, <doffs cap>.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The difference between now and 1974 is that whoever forms a minority government does not have the opportunity to go to the public again to shore up his position, as Wilson did in October 1974. In order to generate an early election, a minority government first has to lose a confidence vote, which is a very different dynamic from the small positive swing that Wilson achieved on the back of "we're making progress."
[/QB]
I wonder if hypothetically one party gets in and sufficient progress is made (or perhaps if the opposition does something really stupid):
could you have a situation where the government party desperately tries to vote itself incompetent and the others are desperate to shore up the governments support.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
how hilarious if it gave the dweeb 5 years as PM.
Hilarious for you maybe, but not for the country.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can imagine Tory faces if Miliband got 5 years in power because of their law. And if he was popular, another 5!
The first is possible. The second I simply cannot envisage. Ten years of that twat and the country will have gone so far to the dogs that it'll be a case of "last one out turn off the lights".
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
could you have a situation where the government party desperately tries to vote itself incompetent and the others are desperate to shore up the governments support.
It's hard to imagine any party voting against itself, and then turning around and campaigning on their great record. I'm not sure that that would be well received by the electorate.
So we are left with the party of minority government requiring:
- To have some early successes, or have the other guys implode
- For the public mood to swing strongly in favour of the government
- For the government to somehow maneuver the opposition parties in to a no confidence vote
- ...even though the opposition would know that they were pretty unpopular withe the public
- And for pretty much every one of the opposition MPs to show up and vote the government down.
It's an amusing idea, but seems unlikely.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can imagine Tory faces if Miliband got 5 years in power because of their law. And if he was popular, another 5!
The first is possible. The second I simply cannot envisage. Ten years of that twat and the country will have gone so far to the dogs that it'll be a case of "last one out turn off the lights".
As opposed to 15 years of Cameron (et. seq) which would probably involve destroying the country and renegotiating our relationship with every other country in Europe on unfavourable terms. British patriotism may be a minority position but for we few, we happy few, it's Ed or nothing.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think one advantage of open primaries is that it allows the natural supporters of a party have their say on the candidate, rather than limiting that say to the relatively small number of paid-up members of the party.
If that decision is limited just to the paid-up members that's a form of dis-enfranchisement for those for who even a $10 annual membership fee would be a considerable investment, not to mention the time commitment that membership or active support of a party would often entail.
On the other hand, an open primary could result in the selection of a candidate that those who will actually be actively campaigning for may not have prefered.
Oh boy, where to start.
First, I have never seen a membership fee be a barrier to party membership. My own party will knock the fee down to $5 for "unwaged" (polite way of saying unemployed and broke). For an entire year.
Second, membership in a political party in Canada (and in every other Westminster system in the Commonwealth) entails no time commitments, no requirement to volunteer and no requirement to contribute further monetarily. I will ensure you receive copious fundraising appeals though!
The rule of 90% applies to riding politics as it does to everything else in life. 10% of the membership are committed activists and the rest sort of hang on. In my experience 40% of the membership will make additional monetary contributions to the party and riding, the average annual yield is usually $200 per donor.
A party exists to put forth a platform of policies and get elected. It is not a vehicle to capture as an institution of access in an of itself as a blank slate. If you want a different idea put forth, found your own party, it's been done often enough. To that end, asking for a very modest membership fee to "put your money where your mouth is" is not unreasonable. The same applies to union certifications in some jurisdictions in Canada.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
First, I have never seen a membership fee be a barrier to party membership. My own party will knock the fee down to $5 for "unwaged" (polite way of saying unemployed and broke). For an entire year.
Second, membership in a political party in Canada (and in every other Westminster system in the Commonwealth) entails no time commitments, no requirement to volunteer and no requirement to contribute further monetarily. I will ensure you receive copious fundraising appeals though!
I still contend that for someone working full time on minimum wage, still having to put in every hour of overtime they can and often taking on a second minimum wage job as well just to scrape by, $5 would seem like a lot of money. "Hmmm, what shall I do? Spend this $5 on groceries for a few days, or pay for membership of a political party?", which answer do you think most people will give?
And, even if someone considered that they could just about afford the $5, how are they going to feel about receiving regular requests to volunteer some time or donate further money? It would certainly be enough for me to seriously consider whether that $5 was well spent, and come next year not renew my membership.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
So now Miliband has said he won't cut a deal with the SNP, where does that leave us with a hung Parliament in a week's time?
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can imagine Tory faces if Miliband got 5 years in power because of their law. And if he was popular, another 5!
The first is possible. The second I simply cannot envisage. Ten years of that twat and the country will have gone so far to the dogs that it'll be a case of "last one out turn off the lights".
This says more about you than it does about Ed Milliband. EM is significantly brighter than George & Dave (he has taught at Harvard, not just studied there), he is the first UK politician for 30 years to have the guts to tell Rupert Murdoch where to stick it, and he prevented David "Dave" Cameron form involving us in another ruinous foreign war in Syria. These to my mind makes him better qualified to lead the country than the present shower of entitled posh boys.
EM is popularly supposed to have an image problem. This IME is only the case among those who are silly enough to believe what they read in the papers. He does not look remotely weird, he looks very much like many people I know and work with. He has an unusual voice, this may be at least partly due to his highly peripatetic upbringing (a good preparation for political leadership in globalised world IMO). He also may have been subject to misguided efforts to make him sound more authoritative.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So now Miliband has said he won't cut a deal with the SNP, where does that leave us with a hung Parliament in a week's time?
An opportunity to put an end to the bizarre myth that a minority government can't run a country?
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I'm worried about that too - I would reckon UKIP & the DUP would go in with the Tories. I'm in no position to comment on the DUP, having no idea about their policies (there has been no coverage at all of NI's parties that I've seen) - but UKIP are bonkers Tory-Xtra, aren't they/
A Tory/UKIP coalition would be the worst possible outcome, in my view (but then I did feel the need to apologise to the Parcel Force man this morning when we had a brief political discussion when I went down to pick up a package from him, for the presence of the Daily Torygraph on our doormat ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
- it's not mine! I don't read the right-wing print press! )
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I suspect that the Tories would not want to form a coalition with UKIP. First because it would mean accepting some of the people who have jumped from the Tories, which they will do through gritted teeth.
But, more importantly, the future of the party has to be to appeal to the middle ground. The Tories can't afford to gain a bit of support on the right by getting into bed with UKIP and losing a vast chunk from the left who want nothing to do with the extremists of UKIP. A coalition with UKIP leaves the Tories with too much to lose, and (hopefully) support of no more than a half dozen MPs for this Parliament.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
As the Tories have spent the last month (disgracefully) portraying the SNP as the barbarians at the gate, then going into coalition with the SNP would somewhat undermine their credibility. However I think Cameron would do almost anything that would keep him in Downing Street.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can imagine Tory faces if Miliband got 5 years in power because of their law. And if he was popular, another 5!
The first is possible. The second I simply cannot envisage. Ten years of that twat and the country will have gone so far to the dogs that it'll be a case of "last one out turn off the lights".
This says more about you than it does about Ed Milliband. EM is significantly brighter than George & Dave (he has taught at Harvard, not just studied there), he is the first UK politician for 30 years to have the guts to tell Rupert Murdoch where to stick it, and he prevented David "Dave" Cameron form involving us in another ruinous foreign war in Syria. These to my mind makes him better qualified to lead the country than the present shower of entitled posh boys.
EM is popularly supposed to have an image problem. This IME is only the case among those who are silly enough to believe what they read in the papers. He does not look remotely weird, he looks very much like many people I know and work with. He has an unusual voice, this may be at least partly due to his highly peripatetic upbringing (a good preparation for political leadership in globalised world IMO). He also may have been subject to misguided efforts to make him sound more authoritative.
I'm not sure we can draw inferences about Miliband and Cameron's relative intelligence from the fact that Miliband has taught at Harvard. Has Cameron ever tried to teach at Harvard?
However, they did both do the same degree at Oxford, where, IIRC, Miliband scraped a 2.1 and Cameron got a first.
I wait with bated breath to see where a Miliband govt takes us with regard to the Murdoch press. He stood up to them, although, again if you believe the rumours, that was only *after* he'd tried unsuccessfully to ingratiate himself with Murdoch. What is clear though is that the SNP are completely in bed with Murdoch (see this week's Private Eye, no link online, and the endorsement of the SNP yesterday by the Scottish Sun), so in a world where he needs the SNP's votes on everything is he going to be able to do anything about Murdoch in reality?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So now Miliband has said he won't cut a deal with the SNP, where does that leave us with a hung Parliament in a week's time?
It doesn't make any difference. If Cameron doesn't have a majority, Miliband is in. I don't think SNP dare vote against him now, and let the Tories in. Also, he's not saying something new.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can imagine Tory faces if Miliband got 5 years in power because of their law. And if he was popular, another 5!
The first is possible. The second I simply cannot envisage. Ten years of that twat and the country will have gone so far to the dogs that it'll be a case of "last one out turn off the lights".
This says more about you than it does about Ed Milliband. EM is significantly brighter than George & Dave (he has taught at Harvard, not just studied there), he is the first UK politician for 30 years to have the guts to tell Rupert Murdoch where to stick it, and he prevented David "Dave" Cameron form involving us in another ruinous foreign war in Syria. These to my mind makes him better qualified to lead the country than the present shower of entitled posh boys.
EM is popularly supposed to have an image problem. This IME is only the case among those who are silly enough to believe what they read in the papers. He does not look remotely weird, he looks very much like many people I know and work with. He has an unusual voice, this may be at least partly due to his highly peripatetic upbringing (a good preparation for political leadership in globalised world IMO). He also may have been subject to misguided efforts to make him sound more authoritative.
I'm not sure we can draw inferences about Miliband and Cameron's relative intelligence from the fact that Miliband has taught at Harvard. Has Cameron ever tried to teach at Harvard?
However, they did both do the same degree at Oxford, where, IIRC, Miliband scraped a 2.1 and Cameron got a first.
I wait with bated breath to see where a Miliband govt takes us with regard to the Murdoch press. He stood up to them, although, again if you believe the rumours, that was only *after* he'd tried unsuccessfully to ingratiate himself with Murdoch. What is clear though is that the SNP are completely in bed with Murdoch (see this week's Private Eye, no link online, and the endorsement of the SNP yesterday by the Scottish Sun), so in a world where he needs the SNP's votes on everything is he going to be able to do anything about Murdoch in reality?
You are quite right to take issue with my rather sketchy argument, I was reacting hastily to a revolting piece of invective. however I do believe that Cameron has unthinkingly ridden the escalator of privilege; his abilities were polished up to their maximum potential at Eton and he hasn't moved on from that milieu. Milliband also had a relatively privileged upbringing, of course, but he strikes me as someone who has seen more of the world and thought more about what he has seen.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can imagine Tory faces if Miliband got 5 years in power because of their law. And if he was popular, another 5!
The first is possible. The second I simply cannot envisage. Ten years of that twat and the country will have gone so far to the dogs that it'll be a case of "last one out turn off the lights".
This says more about you than it does about Ed Milliband. EM is significantly brighter than George & Dave (he has taught at Harvard, not just studied there), he is the first UK politician for 30 years to have the guts to tell Rupert Murdoch where to stick it, and he prevented David "Dave" Cameron form involving us in another ruinous foreign war in Syria. These to my mind makes him better qualified to lead the country than the present shower of entitled posh boys.
EM is popularly supposed to have an image problem. This IME is only the case among those who are silly enough to believe what they read in the papers. He does not look remotely weird, he looks very much like many people I know and work with. He has an unusual voice, this may be at least partly due to his highly peripatetic upbringing (a good preparation for political leadership in globalised world IMO). He also may have been subject to misguided efforts to make him sound more authoritative.
I'm not sure we can draw inferences about Miliband and Cameron's relative intelligence from the fact that Miliband has taught at Harvard. Has Cameron ever tried to teach at Harvard?
However, they did both do the same degree at Oxford, where, IIRC, Miliband scraped a 2.1 and Cameron got a first.
I wait with bated breath to see where a Miliband govt takes us with regard to the Murdoch press. He stood up to them, although, again if you believe the rumours, that was only *after* he'd tried unsuccessfully to ingratiate himself with Murdoch. What is clear though is that the SNP are completely in bed with Murdoch (see this week's Private Eye, no link online, and the endorsement of the SNP yesterday by the Scottish Sun), so in a world where he needs the SNP's votes on everything is he going to be able to do anything about Murdoch in reality?
You are quite right to take issue with my rather sketchy argument, I was reacting hastily to a revolting piece of invective. however I do believe that Cameron has unthinkingly ridden the escalator of privilege; his abilities were polished up to their maximum potential at Eton and he hasn't moved on from that milieu. Milliband also had a relatively privileged upbringing, of course, but he strikes me as someone who has seen more of the world and thought more about what he has seen.
I'm not wildly overjoyed about the idea of having to vote for either of them to be honest.
At the same time, I always find it fascinating how two people can draw diametrically opposed views!
For me, Miliband had a very atypical upbringing (in many ways as privileged as Cameron, albeit in a different way, had a spell in academe, but is essentially a career wonk who has benefited from his family connections and background all the way up.
The same can be said for Cameron, almost word for word, with the exception that he has done a spell in the private sector (alright it was pr, but the hours are long and you survive on your ability) and had more personal contact with the inner workings of the NHS than almost any PM since it was founded.
Those latter two points for me put Cameron ahead in the "seeing more of the world" stakes. I'm just not sure that it matters very much.
One's a privileged stockbroker belt upper middle class Tory, the other's basically Hampstead Labour royalty. How far, genuinely, can either of them really relate to anyone outside their own differently gilded spheres? My personal view is that Cameron just about shades it in sincerity, and ability, but it's a fairly unhappy choice.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So now Miliband has said he won't cut a deal with the SNP, where does that leave us with a hung Parliament in a week's time?
I think Miliband's game is that he's angling for a second election this year. If so it's a risky gamble.
I think he's hoping that the Tories, unable to form a coalition, will lead a minority government, unable to pass a Queen's speech. In spite of the fixed term parliament rule, there is scope for a vote of no confidence (with an 'opposition coalition' of Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru & possibly Lib Dems).
At the second bite then, he can claim that those who voted for the SNP allowed David Cameron back in, albeit briefly. He'll then aim to bring back the former Labour supporters so he can get a majority in the autumn; something he knows is unlikely next week.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I've not really studied the form at this election but there's probably no doubt EM is a credible guy. I am though reminded of the short-lived Labour leader Michael Foot, a truly principled and seemingly good chap. The Press though took a dislike to him from the start, and when he chose to not to brush-up for the Cenotaph's annual pageant he was cruelly made the laughing stock.
As an aside, Newsnight BBC2 last night did a good item on what's happened to the Election campaigning of old. With its raw passion, hecklers and so on. It's made me realise just how sanitised and uninteresting today's campaigning has become.
Reading some of the above it looks like this election is merely a war of alliances and an excruciatingly boring one at that. Mind you what is they say ? 'A week is a long time in politics
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... One's a privileged stockbroker belt upper middle class Tory, the other's basically Hampstead Labour royalty. How far, genuinely, can either of them really relate to anyone outside their own differently gilded spheres? ...
I think that's a very fair analysis.
'People like us' and nepotism etc is just as much a characteristic of the gilded Labour staircase as the Conservative one, except that more people on the Labour one have fooled themselves into thinking it can't apply to them because they are on the left.
I have to admit that I do remain uneasy about fratricide. Admittedly it's metaphorical fratricide and not the actual criminal sort, but I'm not the only person who hasn't forgotten.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have to admit that I do remain uneasy about fratricide. Admittedly it's metaphorical fratricide and not the actual criminal sort, but I'm not the only person who hasn't forgotten. [/QB]
I don't think it' very fair to hold against EM the fact that he won a free and fair democratic election in which his brother was another candidate.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I'm sure some people on here won't give it house room because it's Murdoch press, and I can't link to it because there's a paywall, but if anyone happens to see the Times comment pages today there's a fascinating (and for my money accurate) article by ex Labour speech writer Philip Collins on legitimacy vs consitutional right. Although it's slanted in saying next week could just about be the most poisoned chalice Labour could ever win, there are fairly depressing conclusions to be drawn about both main parties.
The choice seems to be the Tories tearing themselves apart in power over the referendum, or Labour being destroyed for a variety of reasons he goes into in depth, in power over the same period.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... I am though reminded of the short-lived Labour leader Michael Foot, a truly principled and seemingly good chap. ...
How old are you?
He may have been delightful as a person, but as a party leader, as a person to inspire those who weren't Labour voters to vote Labour, and as potential PM material, he was hopeless.
Never, never, forget that in the 1983 election, his party may have held onto 269 seats, but that was on just over 27% of the vote. That is to say, he and his party hardly managed to persuade a quarter of those that voted to vote for them.
He's not by any means, the only duff party leader who never became PM, but as duff ones go, he was pretty duff.
Nor were his principles quite as pristine as they're made out to be. The prejudices of his lifelong political allegiances either blinded him or wilfully closed his eyes to levels of bullying by union magnates of the workforces they claimed to represent that objectively nobody should have been prepared to stomach.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I don't think it' very fair to hold against EM the fact that he won a free and fair democratic election in which his brother was another candidate.
You are entitled to think that. I could not possibly comment.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have to admit that I do remain uneasy about fratricide. Admittedly it's metaphorical fratricide and not the actual criminal sort, but I'm not the only person who hasn't forgotten.
I don't think it' very fair to hold against EM the fact that he won a free and fair democratic election in which his brother was another candidate. [/QB]
No it wouldn't be, but where the charge does stick rather more damningly is the allegation in the Miliband biography that the stab in the back came rather earlier on, when he apparently counselled David in the name of party loyalty not to oust Brown because the time wasn't right, but all the time because he was calculating that he wasn't ready to mount his own challenge, which he kept very quiet about. John Cruddas' advice to David was to belt him one when it all came out, although the language he allegedly used was rather more colourful...
The biog was written by a couple of New Statesmen staffers, so shouldn't really otherwise be regarded as hostile.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... I am though reminded of the short-lived Labour leader Michael Foot, a truly principled and seemingly good chap. ...
How old are you?
He may have been delightful as a person, but as a party leader, as a person to inspire those who weren't Labour voters to vote Labour, and as potential PM material, he was hopeless.
Never, never, forget that in the 1983 election, his party may have held onto 269 seats, but that was on just over 27% of the vote. That is to say, he and his party hardly managed to persuade a quarter of those that voted to vote for them.
He's not by any means, the only duff party leader who never became PM, but as duff ones go, he was pretty duff.
Nor were his principles quite as pristine as they're made out to be. The prejudices of his lifelong political allegiances either blinded him or wilfully closed his eyes to levels of bullying by union magnates of the workforces they claimed to represent that objectively nobody should have been prepared to stomach.
He also had a rather naïve belief that the Labour Party had no enemies to its left, which very nearly destroyed it.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
209 seats for Labour in '83, IIRC.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
209 seats for Labour in '83, IIRC.
Sorry. You're right. Thank you for the correction. That was a typo rather than a full blown mistake.
[ 01. May 2015, 11:58: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by touchstone quote:
I don't think it' very fair to hold against EM the fact that he won a free and fair democratic election in which his brother was another candidate.
Thanks for that - I needed cheering up!
Which bit about the leadership election in 2010 escaped your notice:- that Ed Miliband didn't win a majority among either MPs or MEPs
- that he came only third among constituency parties
- that his union backers broke the party's own rules about sending out a voting recommendation with ballot papers
- that party rules were broken so the same union backers - GMB and UNITE - had people on the panel tasked with looking at the breach
- that there was good evidence of phantom voters among the union votes - that is, people 'voting' who weren't members
.
And all that before you get to the "gentleman's agreement" he had with the brother he stabbed in the back.
You can choose to believe that the relationship between Ed and David is on the mend - I can tell you that it took powerful arm-twisting to get David to go to Ed's wedding and he and Louise didn't go to the party afterwards.
And anyone who thinks that by voting for Ed they'll persuade David back into UK politics in some role can think again: the bitterness is still there, still very raw and particularly between the two wives.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have to admit that I do remain uneasy about fratricide. Admittedly it's metaphorical fratricide and not the actual criminal sort, but I'm not the only person who hasn't forgotten.
I don't think it' very fair to hold against EM the fact that he won a free and fair democratic election in which his brother was another candidate.
No it wouldn't be, but where the charge does stick rather more damningly is the allegation in the Miliband biography that the stab in the back came rather earlier on, when he apparently counselled David in the name of party loyalty not to oust Brown because the time wasn't right, but all the time because he was calculating that he wasn't ready to mount his own challenge, which he kept very quiet about. John Cruddas' advice to David was to belt him one when it all came out, although the language he allegedly used was rather more colourful...
The biog was written by a couple of New Statesmen staffers, so shouldn't really otherwise be regarded as hostile. [/QB]
That said, back in 2009, defenestrating the Prime Minister or, worse, attempting to defenestrate the PM and cocking it up would have made Labour look even more hapless - which, if you recall that era, was pretty fucking hapless indeed. That isn't just my view. It was the view, at the time, of the Eldritch Lord of Hap, himself, Peter, Baron Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy whom, if you recall, went into full Colour Out Of Space mode to prevent such an eventuality coming to pass. It would be naive to assume that one becomes a Cabinet Minister and Leader of the Opposition without considering, among other factors, "what do I get out of this?" when considering such matters. But there were solid reasons at the time to be opposed to such a course of action. And, anyway, it's bit bloody rich for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to publicly make it clear that he is planning to knife his boss and then bottle it, only to find that he has lost subsequent leadership election to his little brother. As Jamie MacDonald memorably put it in 'The Thick Of It': "This is politics. Not fucking Eastenders".
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by l'Organist:
quote:
And anyone who thinks that by voting for Ed they'll persuade David back into UK politics in some role can think again: the bitterness is still there, still very raw and particularly between the two wives.
Oh, good point! I totally base what small leverage I have in the affairs of the realm on considerations as to whether or not the wives of two politicians see eye-to-eye. Personally, I withdrew my support from the Tories in 1996 when I heard that UTTER BITCH Mrs Caroline Waldegrave had inadvertently spilt Pimms over the dress of Lady Mackay of Clashfern and then FAILED TO APOLOGISE. The subsequent defeat for the Conservative Party and the loss of William Waldegrave's Parliamentary seat was apt retribution for her total disrespect for Lady Mackay and, indeed, Laura Ashley.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by touchstone quote:
I don't think it' very fair to hold against EM the fact that he won a free and fair democratic election in which his brother was another candidate.
Thanks for that - I needed cheering up!
Which bit about the leadership election in 2010 escaped your notice:- that Ed Miliband didn't win a majority among either MPs or MEPs
- that he came only third among constituency parties
- that his union backers broke the party's own rules about sending out a voting recommendation with ballot papers
- that party rules were broken so the same union backers - GMB and UNITE - had people on the panel tasked with looking at the breach
- that there was good evidence of phantom voters among the union votes - that is, people 'voting' who weren't members
.
And all that before you get to the "gentleman's agreement" he had with the brother he stabbed in the back.
You can choose to believe that the relationship between Ed and David is on the mend - I can tell you that it took powerful arm-twisting to get David to go to Ed's wedding and he and Louise didn't go to the party afterwards.
And anyone who thinks that by voting for Ed they'll persuade David back into UK politics in some role can think again: the bitterness is still there, still very raw and particularly between the two wives.
I do know a bit about that election, having taken part in it. (Didn't vote for either Milliband as it happens). There was the usual predictable media shit-stirring which tends to follow anything the labour party ever does.
I don't remember seeing any promotional material from my own union, if I did it didn't affect my vote. Anyone who thinks union members automatically do what the leadership tells them doesn't know trade unionists - we are a bolshy lot!
All this "poor little David his brother tricked him" stuff really is a bit wearing. If he made a major decision of national significance based on what his little brother said to him, then he's clearly not PM material.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Callan We all love a good laugh - better given that Mackay of Clashfern is unmarried.
Touchstone Not to say many of us aren't capable of voting independently but there are plenty of people who, if unable to distinguish between two candidates, will vote for the one whose name they see closest to the time they make their mark.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by l'Organist:
quote:
And anyone who thinks that by voting for Ed they'll persuade David back into UK politics in some role can think again: the bitterness is still there, still very raw and particularly between the two wives.
Oh, good point! I totally base what small leverage I have in the affairs of the realm on considerations as to whether or not the wives of two politicians see eye-to-eye. Personally, I withdrew my support from the Tories in 1996 when I heard that UTTER BITCH Mrs Caroline Waldegrave had inadvertently spilt Pimms over the dress of Lady Mackay of Clashfern and then FAILED TO APOLOGISE. The subsequent defeat for the Conservative Party and the loss of William Waldegrave's Parliamentary seat was apt retribution for her total disrespect for Lady Mackay and, indeed, Laura Ashley.
Very good. Some of these comments are more like Hello magazine than actual politics. WTF, the two brothers are daggers at each other, and the wives! You wouldn't believe the screeching that goes on, whereas that nice Samantha, she does look nice in heels, I think you can tell a lot from a politician's wife's shoes.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by l'Organist:
quote:
And anyone who thinks that by voting for Ed they'll persuade David back into UK politics in some role can think again: the bitterness is still there, still very raw and particularly between the two wives.
Oh, good point! I totally base what small leverage I have in the affairs of the realm on considerations as to whether or not the wives of two politicians see eye-to-eye. Personally, I withdrew my support from the Tories in 1996 when I heard that UTTER BITCH Mrs Caroline Waldegrave had inadvertently spilt Pimms over the dress of Lady Mackay of Clashfern and then FAILED TO APOLOGISE. The subsequent defeat for the Conservative Party and the loss of William Waldegrave's Parliamentary seat was apt retribution for her total disrespect for Lady Mackay and, indeed, Laura Ashley.
Very good. Some of these comments are more like Hello magazine than actual politics. WTF, the two brothers are daggers at each other, and the wives! You wouldn't believe the screeching that goes on, whereas that nice Samantha, she does look nice in heels, I think you can tell a lot from a politician's wife's shoes.
Problem is, that's not far off some of the conversations that actually happen, and lines of reasoning people really employ. In my idealistic yoof I actually went canvassing and could probably recall enough material for a decent half hour stand-up set.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
My favourite gem was something like:
"I know Labour can't win here so I'm going to vote Conservative to keep the Tories out..."
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sorry for the duplicate there, if a friendly mod is passing, could you delete the first one.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[QB] Callan We all love a good laugh - better given that Mackay of Clashfern is unmarried.
Even worse! The poor man couldn't get laid because his youthful flame had a dream in which Caroline Waldegrave spilt Pimms over her best dress! Is there no end to his suffering?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry for the duplicate there, if a friendly mod is passing, could you delete the first one.
Done.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[QB] Callan We all love a good laugh - better given that Mackay of Clashfern is unmarried.
Even worse! The poor man couldn't get laid because his youthful flame had a dream in which Caroline Waldegrave spilt Pimms over her best dress! Is there no end to his suffering?
Not forgetting the dress with semen stains, found by a bored journo having a rest from hacking phones.
Whose dress is it, and even more terrifying, whose semen? Could it be, no, surely not, that the dress and the semen are from the same person? Furious denials are coming (yes), from all parties.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Callan We all love a good laugh - better given that Mackay of Clashfern is unmarried.
Even worse! The poor man couldn't get laid because his youthful flame had a dream in which Caroline Waldegrave spilt Pimms over her best dress!
I thought it was that the Wee Wee Frees don't hold with sex - on the grounds it could lead to dancing.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's the attitudes to SNP, which has amazed me, demonizing really. If this continues, surely the union is doomed. They are talked about like lepers.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... surely the union is doomed...
... broken up into manageable regions which mistakenly believe they are governing themselves when really it's faceless eurocrats who now call the shots.
Welcome to a future where the former Houses of Parliament have become a tourist attraction come tea-rooms. And who's to say that won't be better than the past?
< Enoch. I'm old enough not to take politics or politicians too seriously anymore >
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's the attitudes to SNP, which has amazed me, demonizing really. If this continues, surely the union is doomed. They are talked about like lepers.
It's a General Election. It's usual during a General Election to be fairly robust in one's criticism of other political parties. It's not as if the Nats have been all "after you Cecil, no after you Claude" about the Unionist parties, is it?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My wife - who is Scottish but we live in England - is furious at the anti-SNP rhetoric. She says that (a) it is virtually racist; (b) will confirm to the Scots (even non-SNP supporters) that Westminster is only interested in England; and hence (c) will drive voters into the arms of the SNP rather than towards the Unionist parties. I think she's right.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Fair do's, but it ought to be noted that most of it comes from the Tories who have a vested interest in talking up the Nats. George Osborne - who makes the Eldritch Lord of Hap look like George Lansbury, fell over himself after the challengers debate to announce that Nicola Sturgeon had won the debate. Indeed, the dear old Currant Bun ran an English edition saying "vote Tory and stop the Nats" whilst running a Scottish edition saying "Vote Nat". This is pretty synthetic stuff. I'm bewildered that the country of David Hume is falling for it, hook, line and sinker.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Train Fan:
My wife - who is Scottish but we live in England - is furious at the anti-SNP rhetoric. She says that (a) it is virtually racist; (b) will confirm to the Scots (even non-SNP supporters) that Westminster is only interested in England; and hence (c) will drive voters into the arms of the SNP rather than towards the Unionist parties. I think she's right.
I can understand that, but could you ask her to reflect on this.
quote:
Originally posted a few days ago by Cod:
... Now I am going to say something that I'm not particularly proud of. I deplore anti-Scottish sentiment. However, I remember living in the west of Scotland in the 90s, and felt frankly unwelcome. Lots and lots of little things - examples: my local pub with the "English Git" comic strip on the wall; the friend with the "take out the Englishman and bring in the dog", the constant, constant comparisons between English social tendencies and Scottish social tendencies, constant equating of Englishness with Toryism, both Labour and SNP stoking up the anti-English rhetoric to gain Scottish votes - and the bigger things as well - I never actually got beaten up, but there were a number of close runs.
(And in case anyone wonders if I just can't take a joke - well I remember being held halfway up the wall by the neck and called an English bastard by a friend - we were just mucking about and it doesn't count).
I've spent most of my life since then outside the UK, married someone not from the UK, and I have never encountered anything like the animosity (directed at me personally) that I experienced in Scotland.
So when I observe, for example, anti-Scottish sentiment in the English press, I instinctively think a) it's not as bad as what was in the Scottish press back in the 90s and b) what goes around comes around, and it's been a long, long time coming. My experience is that - back then at least - there was a lot of anti-English bigotry in Scotland. But the better part of me thinks: a lot of people need to grow up, put the tribalism to one side, stop scoring points off each other, and work out a new constitutional settlement that works, and I also remind myself that while I was in Scotland, I made some good friends that I keep up with to this day.
As things are at the moment, any Scots person ought to reflect that if 45% of one of the parties to the union vote for a divorce, it's unreasonable to be surprised when some of the other party feel a bit resentful and express it. As Cod has described, for more than a generation it's been taken for granted in Scotland that the English are fair game. If you are Scots, you can be as hostile to the English as you like. Now that an element in England start to express similar resentments, the cry goes up, 'It's nae fair'.
I'd very, very, much prefer the union to hold and for people to get along. I've got Scottish ancestors and relatives. I think we're better together and that England on its own would be a lesser place. But at the moment, I think the Scots have to accept that some of them aren't likely to be very popular. Sadly, as is the way with these things, those who are not guilty are likely to be resented along with those that are.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
What struck me though, was that before the referendum, it was all better together, please stay with us, we can build things together, especially Cameron and Brown, and now the SNP are called everything from a cat to a dog. Sure, it's politics, but if I was in Scotland, I think I'd think long and hard about what better together really means - not a lot.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What struck me though, was that before the referendum, it was all better together, please stay with us, we can build things together, especially Cameron and Brown, and now the SNP are called everything from a cat to a dog. Sure, it's politics, but if I was in Scotland, I think I'd think long and hard about what better together really means - not a lot.
As I said: what goes around comes around.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
And here is the latest attempt at a smear:
Telegraph - Revealed: the secret documents which show the SNP's plan to hold Labour to ransom
quote:
Comment from below the line:
Not exactly the Zinoviev Letter, is it?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
As I said: what goes around comes around.
I've got to say that, as an English person living in Scotland, I've not experienced any anti-English prejudice or abuse. Maybe it's more common in the cities but I've not encountered it. I should also point out that, like many others who voted Yes, I've no particular animus against my southern neighbours (apart from the ones who vote tory, of course ) but I think that there is more chance of building a fair society in an independent Scotland than in the UK as a whole.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
As another Englishman in Scotland, I've not met abuse either. And, I'm much closer to the big cities where it's supposed to be worse. I do get a few "it's the fault of the bloody English" comments, but since what's clearly meant is the English dominated Westminster Parliament, English dominated financial institutions, etc. rather than the English people in general I usually agree.
It does depend on the person too, of course. If you move to Glasgow from England and start making a big thing of how things are better in England you're going to get less pleasant comments. But, you'll get the same anywhere if you move there with that attitude.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I do get a few "it's the fault of the bloody English" comments, but since what's clearly meant is the English dominated Westminster Parliament, English dominated financial institutions, etc. rather than the English people in general I usually agree.
I'd agree in that situation too. What is good for Westminster may be bad for the Celtic nations, and if it is then it is probably bad for those English regions far from Westminster.
Which is why I find David Cameron's English votes for English people to be step in the wrong direction, it would lead to more Westminster domination in England. We really need more power to the regions and less to central government.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch
As things are at the moment, any Scots person ought to reflect that if 45% of one of the parties to the union vote for a divorce, it's unreasonable to be surprised when some of the other party feel a bit resentful and express it. As Cod has described, for more than a generation it's been taken for granted in Scotland that the English are fair game. If you are Scots, you can be as hostile to the English as you like. Now that an element in England start to express similar resentments, the cry goes up, 'It's nae fair'.
I'd very, very, much prefer the union to hold and for people to get along. I've got Scottish ancestors and relatives. I think we're better together and that England on its own would be a lesser place. But at the moment, I think the Scots have to accept that some of them aren't likely to be very popular. Sadly, as is the way with these things, those who are not guilty are likely to be resented along with those that are.
The thing is, if the Tories think separatism is somehow beyond the pale to a degree that makes a deal with the SNP 'despicable', then they shouldn't have allowed a referendum in the first place - although they should probably consider why they think 45% of the Scottish electorate hold 'despicable' views.
And if the objection is to chauvinism rather than separatism per se, then they certainly shouldn't have anything to do with the DUP.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
The DUP are Irish Tories. I'm old enough to remember party political broadcasts by the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I thought that was the UUP rather than the DUP?
Tories and UUP stood on a joint ticket last time round although the one MP thus elected later resigned from the party.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
I'm seeing parallels with 1885, when the rise of a nationalist party (Parnell's Irish home rulers)caused a political re-alignment in England, in this case a split in the ruling liberal party which ended their period of ascendancy.
Cameron is playing a dangerous game by pandering to English nationalism (and by extension talking up the SNP). He may win back enough of his bluekippers to stagger over the finish line in this election, but in the long term he risks stoking up the internal tensions in the Tory party to breaking point.
It strikes me that the rump of the LibDems could also split along their original liberal/SDP faultline, particularly if Coalition 2.0 is a viable option.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought that was the UUP rather than the DUP?
Tories and UUP stood on a joint ticket last time round although the one MP thus elected later resigned from the party.
This is a very important point. One of the results of the Troubles years was that the UUP first split from the Conservatives (they used to take the Tory whip) and then lost their dominant position to Paisley and the DUP.
The DUP is a different animal from the UUP, more hardline sectarian and less naturally sympathetic to the Tories. They'd tend to be socially right-wing but not necessarily economically so. Their support for a Conservative-led coalition should not be taken for granted.
Some DUP supporters might even like the idea of an independent Ulster.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
The UK wide party the DUP have most in common with is probably the BNP. The homophobia, the alliance with extreme conservative Christians, the far right social views and middling economic policies.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Now that is most unfair. I would compare the main stream of the DUP to UKIP - intransigent, rather cranky, unpalatable, but nothing like the avowedly neo-Nazi BNP. (The late lamented ken was particularly strong on the evils of the BNP. It is much worse even than yer average fascist, anti-Semitic party such as the French FN).
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought that was the UUP rather than the DUP?
Yes. My bad.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought that was the UUP rather than the DUP?
Tories and UUP stood on a joint ticket last time round although the one MP thus elected later resigned from the party.
This is a very important point. One of the results of the Troubles years was that the UUP first split from the Conservatives (they used to take the Tory whip) and then lost their dominant position to Paisley and the DUP.
The DUP is a different animal from the UUP, more hardline sectarian and less naturally sympathetic to the Tories. They'd tend to be socially right-wing but not necessarily economically so. Their support for a Conservative-led coalition should not be taken for granted.
Some DUP supporters might even like the idea of an independent Ulster.
The DUPs red lines, IIRC, are abolition of the bedroom tax and a referendum on EU membership. In the event that Con+Lb Dem+UKIP is just short of a majority, I can see Cameron repealing that particular piece of legislation in order to get over the line. (And desolating as that prospect is the sole consolation will be to watch Nick Clegg explain - I am a progressive forward thinking pro-European, the heir to Gladstone, Bright and Grimond - and here are my friends in the House - David Cameron, Nigel Farage and Nigel Dodds).
If, on the other hand, the outcome is a Labour minority government dependent on the votes of the minority parties I would expect the DUP to turn up in the Labour division lobbies more often than not, whilst Miliband discreetly adds increases to public spending in Ulster. Their other big deal is reform of the Parades Commission to allow lunatic Protestant sectarians to march through Catholic areas singing 'The Sash My Father Wore' at full volume but I certainly can't see Ed signing up to that and even Dave has the wit to see that 'Labour started the peace process, The Tories ended it' might not be a good look at the 2020 election - although cynically, given that he is not going for a third term he might be happy enough to leave a massive turd in Boris' punchbowl.
The DUP are currently in coalition with Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland executive which suggests to me that they are somewhat more ideologically sinuous than the days when their political platform consisted mainly of the late Dr. Paisley repeatedly bellowing "No surrender to the forces of AntiChrist' into a megaphone. I think an assumption that they will definitely support the Tories is a mistake but it's safe to say that Nigel and Ed make a somewhat unlikely couple.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
As I said: what goes around comes around.
I've got to say that, as an English person living in Scotland, I've not experienced any anti-English prejudice or abuse. Maybe it's more common in the cities but I've not encountered it. I should also point out that, like many others who voted Yes, I've no particular animus against my southern neighbours (apart from the ones who vote tory, of course ) but I think that there is more chance of building a fair society in an independent Scotland than in the UK as a whole.
I think that there is probably a threefold distinction to be made between what one might call anti-English racism which, AFAICS, is a straw man and then between legitimate political difference between separatism or nationalism and a belief that as socialists or social democrats it is better for the UK to stick together than to split up. I mean, obviously, that's a fairly profound difference of principle and I think the SNP are on the wrong side of the argument but it's a prudential argument - I can see where the Nats are coming from, as it were.
There is however, a third category, whereby some Nationalists appear to regard support for other parties as treachery to the nation. Hence, last night, the Labour Party held a rally in Scotland and people turning up to the rally were abused as traitors and quislings, including parents with children. Now lots of decent Nationalists did condemn that and I suspect that a straw poll of Nationalist supporters would probably make that a majority but, it's fair to say that isn't usual for most parties in the UK to operate in that manner. Granted, the Tories put up a counter demo at a number of Labour rallies but it largely consisted of students with two much time on their hands wearing Alex Salmond masks and eating soleros (you don't want to know). If you can point to Labour or anyone else pulling off that sort of stuff (the abuse, not the twitter in-jokes) outside an SNP gig, then I condemn it absolutely. This is why some of us are a bit concerned about nationalism. Historically it has had a tendency to begin with rhetoric about liberty and new dawns and ended up with baying mobs. If you pray, pray that the analogy gets no more apposite than that.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think it's worth pointing out that the mobs after the referendum were unionists with links the Orange Order and other far-right groups, not Scottish nationalists. There are doubtless some lunatics who support the SNP, but it should be noted that the Britnats can be pretty nationalistic too.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think it's worth pointing out that the mobs after the referendum were unionists with links the Orange Order and other far-right groups, not Scottish nationalists. There are doubtless some lunatics who support the SNP, but it should be noted that the Britnats can be pretty nationalistic too.
I don't think that it was the Orange Order shouting 'scum' and 'quislng' outside Friday's Labour rally. I have no brief for the Orange Order and anything they did on the same lines I condemn.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
It was far worse than a bit of heckling:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/eleven-arrests-police-step-up-4297486
Posted by maryjones (# 13523) on
:
It seems to me that it would have been totally wrong to stop Ed from standing just because he had an older brother. That was not his responsibility!
On the other hand, Ed was never going to get my vote because he was too idle/ uninterested/irresponsible to register as the father of his first child.
The Leaders debate confirmed my feelings. The sneer on his face when he was talking to Nicola Sturgeon was totally contemptuous, a real "Get back in the kitchen, woman!"
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
He is *raising* his first child, I am not sure why it is such an issue for you.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by maryjones:
The Leaders debate confirmed my feelings. The sneer on his face when he was talking to Nicola Sturgeon was totally contemptuous, a real "Get back in the kitchen, woman!"
Someone said to me the other day that at least Ed Miliband came across like a real human being, unlike Cameron. I left it at that as she seemed quite angry, but I completely disagreed with her. To me Ed Miliband has always come across as cold, ambitious and with a semi-permanent sneer on his face. Labour have got the wrong Miliband at the top. I don't like his brother, but David Miliband would have been capable, solid and a serious rival. Ed may well lose Labour the election, but that's fine with me
I know it's not supposed to be about personalities, but actually they do matter. If you're going to get five years of someone at the helm, it needs to be someone you feel you can have confidence in.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Yes it's odd that Labour appears to have made something of a hash at finding a decent successor to president Blair. After all It was New Labour who, in 97, first discovered that a massive glitzy campaign with a shiny new leader could spectacularly deliver a party to power.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I dunno, it looks to me as though, in contrast to Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, who have expended considerable effort in creating personas for themselves, Cameron and Miliband have simply been advised to remove from the public eye any part of their personality that could alienate people, without replacing it with anything. Consequently they both seem rather empty and plastic to me.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yes it's odd that Labour appears to have made something of a hash at finding a decent successor to president Blair. After all It was New Labour who, in 97, first discovered that a massive glitzy campaign with a shiny new leader could spectacularly deliver a party to power.
Not convinced by your analysis.
Within my memory, no party has ever won an election. Government has changed hands because the previous administration has lost the election. The number of people fed up with them reaches a point when enough of them vote for someone else. That was true in 1964, 1970, 1974, 1979, 1997 and 2010. The only election I can think of when that may not have been true is 1945, but I hadn't been born then. It was definitely true of 1997. Tony Blair happened to be there at the right time with the right package to benefit from that. I agree, though, that it was the package that gave him the landslide that he achieved.
However, for all that the left may now grumble, his result in 2001 does rather suggest he must have been doing something right.
I think now, on reflection, that's the oddest election result I can remember. It contrasts interestingly and significantly with 1950.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
A donkey with a red rosette would have won the 97 election. It's just a crashing shame John Smith wasn't around to benefit from that.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yes it's odd that Labour appears to have made something of a hash at finding a decent successor to president Blair. After all It was New Labour who, in 97, first discovered that a massive glitzy campaign with a shiny new leader could spectacularly deliver a party to power.
Not convinced by your analysis.
Within my memory, no party has ever won an election. Government has changed hands because the previous administration has lost the election. The number of people fed up with them reaches a point when enough of them vote for someone else. That was true in 1964, 1970, 1974, 1979, 1997 and 2010. The only election I can think of when that may not have been true is 1945, but I hadn't been born then. It was definitely true of 1997. Tony Blair happened to be there at the right time with the right package to benefit from that. I agree, though, that it was the package that gave him the landslide that he achieved.
However, for all that the left may now grumble, his result in 2001 does rather suggest he must have been doing something right.
I think now, on reflection, that's the oddest election result I can remember. It contrasts interestingly and significantly with 1950.
I think this is broadly correct. In 97, there had been 4 Tory govts, so there was an almost inevitable recoil, and then in 2010, there had been 3 Labour ones. I think in 51, people were tired of austerity under Labour. The 70s were rather messy, but Wilson hung on for 3 govts, or was it 4.
I suppose normally you would expect 2 or 3 Tory govts now, but maybe people are feeling disgruntled.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... I suppose normally you would expect 2 or 3 Tory govts now, but maybe people are feeling disgruntled.
Whatever accusations the politically cantankerous may make, the expiring administration isn't a Conservative one.
My interpretation of the 2010 result, which accords with my memory at the time, is that the public at large didn't want Gordon Brown any more, and didn't want a Conservative administration either. What they actually got was the only likely way this was likely to happen. So as an outcome, oddly, our crud electoral system probably delivered that time the best compromise it could have done.
More speculatively, on the figures it should really have delivered a hung Parliament in 2005. If that had been the result though, logic would have been that the Blair administration would have continued with some sort of electoral deal. Taking into account the Labour Party's deeply ingrained gut feelings, they would not have been prepared to share actual power with anyone though.
[ 03. May 2015, 16:38: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
The comments about Cameron looking more Prime Ministerial than Milliband puzzle me. To me, he looks like a man who can't cope with pressure - which is an inevitable part of the job. Shortly before the independence vote and panicked, promising Scotland lots more powers whatever happened. As the Election gets closer he's panicking again, and making absurd promises: the NHS can have as much money as it likes, we won't cut child benefit, I'll pass a law to force myself to keep my word. Doesn't look to me as though he's up to the job.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
To me, schooled in the roughhouse alliances of Australian politics, but once upon a time a voter in the UK, the most bizarre thing about this election is the attitudes of leaders of the Conservatives and the Labor Party to any alliance or coalition with any one else.
It is a historical fact that most of the "Conservative" governments of the 20th century - certainly before c 1980 - were formal coalitions with the Ulster Unionists. So does Mr Cameron imagine that all of them were somehow "unconstitutional"? It obviously wasn't modern history that he studied at Oxford.
And what does Millibrand stand to gain by saying that he will never enter into any kind of alliance with the Scottish Nationalists? Not a formal coalition , I can understand. But given anything like the predicted outcome of seats, his one and only chance to form a government is likely to be to enter an alliance with the SNP, even if it's only on the basis of the SNP not voting against supply or for no-confidence.
But now, If he does this, he can be pilloried for "breaking his word", and if he doesn't he can be pilloried for putting the Tories back into power. That's a lose-lose for him personally. He would have been far better to have been non-committal on alliances, perhaps by saying, "let's see what happens after the election".
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The comments about Cameron looking more Prime Ministerial than Milliband puzzle me. To me, he looks like a man who can't cope with pressure - which is an inevitable part of the job. Shortly before the independence vote and panicked, promising Scotland lots more powers whatever happened. As the Election gets closer he's panicking again, and making absurd promises: the NHS can have as much money as it likes, we won't cut child benefit, I'll pass a law to force myself to keep my word. Doesn't look to me as though he's up to the job.
This is so true. His main schtick (as in 2010) is "I'm a clever chap with a confident voice who should be in charge". (That is, when he's not trying to undermine the democratic rights of Scottish people and their elected representatives). This isn't working, so he doesn't know what to do and desperately flails around - Lynton Crosby must be rolling his eyes.
If (as seems likely) he fails to deliver a majority for the second time, I expect him to be handed the revolver and the glass of whisky in short order. The Tory party has no great love for him, and the queue is growing restless...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
And what does Millibrand stand to gain by saying that he will never enter into any kind of alliance with the Scottish Nationalists?
I agree that he should have been much more non-committal, but I suspect at least part of the reason he was as forceful as he was, is because he didn't want to provide reasons for Labour (and undecided) voters in Scotland to switch to the SNP on the belief that a vote for one was the vote for the other.
OTOH I think in the long run the impact of Cameron's comments will have a much greater effect - as the portrayal of Scots as fifth column within the UK is unlikely to endear those north of the border to him (and remember that there was until recent times a fairly significant chunk of Scots willing to vote for a right of centre party).
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A donkey with a red rosette would have won the 97 election.
OH thanks for that gem DT.
This Election hasn't produced many laughs, that's a first for me.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As the Election gets closer he's panicking again, and making absurd promises: the NHS can have as much money as it likes, we won't cut child benefit,
This issue requires careful examination I think. The Tories have promised to cut 12bn off the welfare budget - approximately 5% of the total. Half the welfare budget is state pensions - which they have promised not to cut - so that makes a 10% cut off the remainder. They have then said that they'll not touch disability benefits and - now - child benefits - which means an approximately 15% cut to benefits paid to people of working age (Job Seekers allowance, housing benefit, income support etc.).
Given that a lot of the stated 'recovery' in jobs has been at the lower end of the scale, this does not bode well at all.
[Anyone thinking that you can cut 15% by eliminating 'waste' might be interested in a bridge I have for sale, only one owner, carefully maintained].
[ 04. May 2015, 10:33: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
1 - "Stay in the Union, we're better off together."
2 - "Scottish MPs are a second class group, who must have restricted voting rights, and any discussions with English parties will be viewed with suspicion."
3 - "Why do you still want independence?"
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
And what does Millibrand stand to gain by saying that he will never enter into any kind of alliance with the Scottish Nationalists?
I basically agree with chris stiles. The interesting thing in Scotland is that the right of centre option has disappeared. The SNP used to be a broad party, united around a desire for independence but other wise running the full width of the political spectrum (hence, sometimes known as Tartan Tories). But, since devolution they have entered government and have, by necessity, actually developed political ideas other than just independence. In the process they've shed their right wing membership and become left wing. The Conservative Party should have been able to sweep up at least some of those right of centre votes, but those were people with independence ideals and so would have been driven away from the tories in the referendum campaign. If there was a right of centre party in Scotland that was not totally dismissive of independence I expect they might get quite a substantial vote, taking that from the SNP who probably still have that vote (with gritted teeth as right-leaning people vote for a left wing manifesto). If Labour can't regain a lot of ground before the next Holyrood election Scotland is going to be much poorer without an adequate opposition, and a right of centre Scottish party might help provide that.
Back to the quote. Milliband is also playing to the English electorate, who have been fed a whole lot of tosh about Scottish domination of Westminster. He's also trying to play the "English votes for English matters" card, and the nature of that card is it plays right into a constitutional minefield that seems to be trapping both him and Cameron into ever more convoluted and bizarre positions to avoid blowing themselves to bits. Since Milliband would have expected to bring in a sizeable number of MPs from Scotland he's in a bit more difficulty, a Labour majority without 10-20, at least, Scottish MPs is going to be hard for him to achieve. Cameron would be much more hopeful of a majority even without any Scottish MPs
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I just don't see how anyone can risk having Miliband in charge while he's still in denial about the economic record of the Labour governments under Blair and Brown from 2001 onwards. And Miliband and Balls are in denial: their reaction on being confronted with the evidence of their incompetence and mismanagement is much the same as a dog's when challenged over the smell - "What? Me? No! I've not farted, I don't even have a bottom!"
One may have to hold the nose to vote for Mr Cameron but at least it will be voting for someone who won't make us any worse off, and who is actually likely to leave the national finances better than they are now.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I just don't see how anyone can risk having Miliband in charge while he's still in denial about the economic record of the Labour governments under Blair and Brown from 2001 onwards. And Miliband and Balls are in denial: their reaction on being confronted with the evidence of their incompetence and mismanagement is much the same as a dog's when challenged over the smell - "What? Me? No! I've not farted, I don't even have a bottom!"
One may have to hold the nose to vote for Mr Cameron but at least it will be voting for someone who won't make us any worse off, and who is actually likely to leave the national finances better than they are now.
Aside from failing to regulate the banks, which leaders worldwide are guilty of, what incompetence and mismanagement are you alleging?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I firmly place the blame for the recession on the banks, and think that Brown et. al. handled the crisis as well as anyone could have done. Nevertheless I do think that the Blair government built the economy of the country on a credit bubble which could never last. Mind you, I'm pretty sure that a Tory government would have done the same.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I just don't see how anyone can risk having Miliband in charge while he's still in denial about the economic record of the Labour governments under Blair and Brown from 2001 onwards. And Miliband and Balls are in denial: their reaction on being confronted with the evidence of their incompetence and mismanagement is much the same as a dog's when challenged over the smell - "What? Me? No! I've not farted, I don't even have a bottom!"
One may have to hold the nose to vote for Mr Cameron but at least it will be voting for someone who won't make us any worse off, and who is actually likely to leave the national finances better than they are now.
By 2010 the UK economy was growing again after the shock caused by the banking crash. Cameron and Osborne pushed us back into recession with their misguided & idealogically driven cuts, which they largely abandoned in 2012 when even they realised that austerity on that scale was a really bad idea. It suits them to pretend that the U-turn never happened, but it is the worst-kept secret in British politics.
Labour don't say much about this because they realise that the economy is Tory home turf and the "Labour caused the recession" myth is too entrenched to be significantly dented in the public mind.
The only people who have anything to apologise for over the 2008 crash are Fred Goodwin and his ilk. Brown and Darling did everything they could in truly dire circumstances. We were 12 hours away from cash machines not working and no-one being paid.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Osborne inherited a recovering economy after the banking crash. He flatlined it.
*golf claps*
(x-posted with touchstone)
[ 04. May 2015, 16:14: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm not sure about 'Labour caused the recession' being entrenched. Of course, it is in the Daily Mail and so on, but it's lazy thinking. Labour bought into the deregulation fantasy, but then so did Clinton, and so did the Tories. Takes too much space, but I would have thought a quite robust counter-argument is not difficult.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
As I understand it, Cameron and Osborne inherited less of a deficit in 2010 than Blair and Brown did in 1997.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The comments about Cameron looking more Prime Ministerial than Milliband puzzle me. To me, he looks like a man who can't cope with pressure - which is an inevitable part of the job. Shortly before the independence vote and panicked, promising Scotland lots more powers whatever happened. As the Election gets closer he's panicking again, and making absurd promises: the NHS can have as much money as it likes, we won't cut child benefit, I'll pass a law to force myself to keep my word. Doesn't look to me as though he's up to the job.
The man Cam ain't what you'd call a conviction politician. Back in his early days when he was asked why he wanted to be PM he said "Beacuse I think I would be rather good at it.".
So what do you want to do when you grow up boys and girls? Richard "I want my own airline." Roman? "I want to own a football club." "David? "Well for starters, I'll be Prime Minister…."
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
One may have to hold the nose to vote for Mr Cameron but at least it will be voting for someone who won't make us any worse off, and who is actually likely to leave the national finances better than they are now.
Depends who 'us' are! If you are a disabled person on benefits, or someone clobbered with the bedroom tax, or struggling to find work that isn't a zero-hours contract with low pay, I think the chances of being worse off are pretty high.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure about 'Labour caused the recession' being entrenched. Of course, it is in the Daily Mail and so on, but it's lazy thinking. Labour bought into the deregulation fantasy, but then so did Clinton, and so did the Tories. Takes too much space, but I would have thought a quite robust counter-argument is not difficult.
Yes, I sometimes wish that Labour would make such an argument - possibly it might keep Ed Balls out of mischief (then again, maybe not..) I don't think they want Ed Milliband to get to involved in a vicious fight over an economic record for which he has little personal responsibility.
Labour have been reasonably successful in this campaign in moving the battle away from economic competence and onto more favourable ground. That they managed to panic Cameron into making frankly risible promises of unfunded billions for the NHS, speaks volumes about who has made the weather for the last few weeks.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Or anyone who relies on the NHS with appointment fees and additional costs likely to come in under the Tories. (Said as an asthmatic who pays for my medications that keep me up and functioning.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure about 'Labour caused the recession' being entrenched. Of course, it is in the Daily Mail and so on, but it's lazy thinking. Labour bought into the deregulation fantasy, but then so did Clinton, and so did the Tories. Takes too much space, but I would have thought a quite robust counter-argument is not difficult.
Yes, I sometimes wish that Labour would make such an argument - possibly it might keep Ed Balls out of mischief (then again, maybe not..) I don't think they want Ed Milliband to get to involved in a vicious fight over an economic record for which he has little personal responsibility.
Labour have been reasonably successful in this campaign in moving the battle away from economic competence and onto more favourable ground. That they managed to panic Cameron into making frankly risible promises of unfunded billions for the NHS, speaks volumes about who has made the weather for the last few weeks.
I think the Tories have been panicking for months. Miliband turned out not to be a patsy, in fact, looks rather dignified and intelligent. So plan A, attack him, backfired. Plan B, offer uncosted bribes, seemed underwhelming. Plan C, attack links with SNP, may be working right now, but comes across as very English nationalist. I suppose plan D is, we will be the biggest party, so you should not vote against us! Well ...
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Labour bought into the deregulation fantasy, but then so did Clinton, and so did the Tories.
One has to admire the sheer chutzpah of the Tories for having spent years saying Gordon Brown's excessive regulation is strangling the City - and then when the economy crashed due to insufficient regulation, claiming the economy would have been somehow better on their watch.
[ 04. May 2015, 17:09: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Labour bought into the deregulation fantasy, but then so did Clinton, and so did the Tories.
One has to admire the sheer chutzpah of the Tories for having spent years saying Gordon Brown's excessive regulation is strangling the City - and then when the economy crashed due to insufficient regulation, claiming the economy would have been somehow better on their watch.
What's depressing about it is the number of people who buy into that narrative. I presume the reason Labour don't try to counter it is that they assume people are too dumb to understand the complexities of national economies and how they differ from household budgets.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Labour bought into the deregulation fantasy, but then so did Clinton, and so did the Tories.
One has to admire the sheer chutzpah of the Tories for having spent years saying Gordon Brown's excessive regulation is strangling the City - and then when the economy crashed due to insufficient regulation, claiming the economy would have been somehow better on their watch.
What's depressing about it is the number of people who buy into that narrative. I presume the reason Labour don't try to counter it is that they assume people are too dumb to understand the complexities of national economies and how they differ from household budgets.
I think Labour are making a simple calculation: they could make a convincing counter-argument but it wouldn't convince anyone to vote for them who wasn't already planning to. Playing on worries about the NHS, public services and insecure employment is more likely to sway swing voters in marginal constituencies.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, Labour are playing a percentage game. I'm not totally convinced it's correct, as just in a few posts here, the 'Labour caused the mess' myth has been dismantled. But maybe that's why I'm not leader, and Miliband is, I think you probably get an intuitive feel for these things. It's probably too complicated to present in a soundbite.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Labour bought into the deregulation fantasy, but then so did Clinton, and so did the Tories.
One has to admire the sheer chutzpah of the Tories for having spent years saying Gordon Brown's excessive regulation is strangling the City - and then when the economy crashed due to insufficient regulation, claiming the economy would have been somehow better on their watch.
Or, for that matter, having proclaimed that they would go along with Labour's spending plans and then, after the crash, discovering that said spending plans had caused a global banking crash. Where do they get this shit? Opportunists R Us?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Labour bought into the deregulation fantasy, but then so did Clinton, and so did the Tories.
One has to admire the sheer chutzpah of the Tories for having spent years saying Gordon Brown's excessive regulation is strangling the City - and then when the economy crashed due to insufficient regulation, claiming the economy would have been somehow better on their watch.
Or, for that matter, having proclaimed that they would go along with Labour's spending plans and then, after the crash, discovering that said spending plans had caused a global banking crash. Where do they get this shit? Opportunists R Us?
Yeah, but this shit often works, because it involves lazy thinking. Well, maybe it's not working as well now, because people have become skeptical or cynical. But it works some of the time, I guess, because thinking it out for yourself is really hard.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
And what does Millibrand stand to gain by saying that he will never enter into any kind of alliance with the Scottish Nationalists?
I agree that he should have been much more non-committal, but I suspect at least part of the reason he was as forceful as he was, is because he didn't want to provide reasons for Labour (and undecided) voters in Scotland to switch to the SNP on the belief that a vote for one was the vote for the other.
OTOH I think in the long run the impact of Cameron's comments will have a much greater effect - as the portrayal of Scots as fifth column within the UK is unlikely to endear those north of the border to him (and remember that there was until recent times a fairly significant chunk of Scots willing to vote for a right of centre party).
The magic number for a Parliamentary Majority is 323 out of 650. This is because the Speaker and Deputies do not vote and because Sinn Fein do not take their seats. There are 59 MPs from Scotland, the rest are elected by voters from England and Wales the overwhelming majority of whom do not favour the break up of the United Kingdom. The majority of voters from Northern Ireland, whose MPs do take their seats feel the same way. Furthermore, whilst the SNP are undoubtedly going to to do well at the election, exactly how well is still up for grabs and Labour would have to be clinically insane to tell Labour voters, who might not be keen on the union or just pissed off that they are taken for granted, that they could vote SNP and still get a Labour government. That being the case it makes more sense to put out a Queens Speech with a mansion tax, the abolition of the bedroom tax, regulation of the energy companies and the abolition of non-dom status and so forth and letting the SNP decide, if they feel so moved, to vote against it with the Tories.
[ 04. May 2015, 19:13: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, but this shit often works, because it involves lazy thinking. Well, maybe it's not working as well now, because people have become skeptical or cynical. But it works some of the time, I guess, because thinking it out for yourself is really hard.
It also works because it has become the dominant narrative in most of the media - even as the majority of economists (both right and left) would reject at least parts of it. Simon Wren-Lewis has dealt with this extensively on his blog:
"One of the lasting images of this election was the man in the recent Leaders Question Time who accused Miliband of lying when he said that the global financial crisis rather than Labour profligacy had caused the deficit. (Second clip here.) He just knew that the last government had bankrupted the economy, and it appears many in the audience did too. And who could blame them: coalition politicians go unchallenged when they say it, and lots of newspapers repeat the line endlessly as fact."
Essentially the myth starts by confusing the economics of a country with that of a household and then proceeds from there - being suitably myopic about recent events.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yeah, but this shit often works, because it involves lazy thinking. Well, maybe it's not working as well now, because people have become skeptical or cynical. But it works some of the time, I guess, because thinking it out for yourself is really hard.
It also works because it has become the dominant narrative in most of the media - even as the majority of economists (both right and left) would reject at least parts of it. Simon Wren-Lewis has dealt with this extensively on his blog:
"One of the lasting images of this election was the man in the recent Leaders Question Time who accused Miliband of lying when he said that the global financial crisis rather than Labour profligacy had caused the deficit. (Second clip here.) He just knew that the last government had bankrupted the economy, and it appears many in the audience did too. And who could blame them: coalition politicians go unchallenged when they say it, and lots of newspapers repeat the line endlessly as fact."
Essentially the myth starts by confusing the economics of a country with that of a household and then proceeds from there - being suitably myopic about recent events.
Yes, I saw that, kind of amusing and horrifying at the same time. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
I suppose these things work as soundbites, and politics often operates by soundbites. Anything more analytic will be found boring by many people, who don't want to think, and want other people to do it for them.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Essentially the myth starts by confusing the economics of a country with that of a household and then proceeds from there - being suitably myopic about recent events.
Funnily enough, my local Labour candidate (and MP in the previous parliament) used this analogy at the hustings a week ago. How would you say the two are different?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Essentially the myth starts by confusing the economics of a country with that of a household and then proceeds from there - being suitably myopic about recent events.
Funnily enough, my local Labour candidate (and MP in the previous parliament) used this analogy at the hustings a week ago. How would you say the two are different?
Because a household doesn't issue it's own currency would be the most important difference, with a whole bunch of second order effects following from there.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, Labour are playing a percentage game. I'm not totally convinced it's correct, as just in a few posts here, the 'Labour caused the mess' myth has been dismantled. But maybe that's why I'm not leader, and Miliband is, I think you probably get an intuitive feel for these things. It's probably too complicated to present in a soundbite.
Well, it depends what argument one is refuting. To my mind deregulating the banks counts as a serious blunder, and defending oneself from the charge of overspending on the grounds that one was making some other silly mistake instead isn't a particularly strong defence. And though 'The Tories would have done it worse' may be true, it is only a defence against the Tories, not against people who think all politicians are the same.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Funnily enough, my local Labour candidate (and MP in the previous parliament) used this analogy at the hustings a week ago. How would you say the two are different?
Relative costs of debt, need to be able to stop working at some point so need to pay off debts, household incomes mostly don't keep growing indefinitely. The list is pretty much endless. It's a useful analogy for understanding some basic ideas, like borrowing to invest (as you might buying a car or a house), but it breaks down when it comes to the consequences of debt and what it means to have too much debt.
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
Chris Stiles - spot on!
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
Another way of pointing out the difference. In a household if all the different members have been overspending, all the members can and probably should cut at the same time.
Whereas in an economy if everyone stops spending at the same time you end up in deep, deep trouble.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Essentially the myth starts by confusing the economics of a country with that of a household and then proceeds from there - being suitably myopic about recent events.
Funnily enough, my local Labour candidate (and MP in the previous parliament) used this analogy at the hustings a week ago. How would you say the two are different?
Because a household doesn't issue it's own currency would be the most important difference, with a whole bunch of second order effects following from there.
Can't speak for Anglican't, obviously, but I did rather read his question as actually:
"why is it ok when this Labour candidate uses the analogy, when we're all arguing here that it's wrong for the Tories to use the analogy because it doesn't work?"
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Without knowing in what way the candidate in question used the analogy, it's rather hard to judge whether and in what way it might or might not be valid in that context.
Posted by maryjones (# 13523) on
:
Somebody upthread mentioned a "live" opinion poll. opinion poll
It's a great idea and the site includes historical data from the last election.
It should also be accompanied by a health warning. When I last checked, the Greens had 396 seats, followed by UKIP on 98 and the SNP on 59.
Labour just beat the Nationalists ahead of the Lib Dems and the trade Unionists.
What about the Conservatives? Yes. Or rather, no. They aren't mentioned.
Just a bit of fun? Indeed, but I'd be happier if it didn't have the air of legitimacy from the historic data
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by maryjones:
Somebody upthread mentioned a "live" opinion poll. opinion poll
It's a great idea and the site includes historical data from the last election.
It should also be accompanied by a health warning. When I last checked, the Greens had 396 seats, followed by UKIP on 98 and the SNP on 59.
Labour just beat the Nationalists ahead of the Lib Dems and the trade Unionists.
What about the Conservatives? Yes. Or rather, no. They aren't mentioned.
Just a bit of fun? Indeed, but I'd be happier if it didn't have the air of legitimacy from the historic data
But it doesn't though does it? Interesting that the three parties mentioned (UKIP, Green, SNP) are the most active on social media and things like this get shared widely by the convinced minorities. I don't think there's any danger of people taking the "poll" seriously surely?
Although, worryingly, the BBC this morning had a few vox pops with people in their 20s who couldn't name the Prime Minister, so, in reality, maybe we are going to need helplines for these voters (certainly for the Greens and UKIP), who are going to be massively disillusioned on Friday. The SNP, of course, are a different kettle of fish - although, as I've noted before, some of them may be disillusioned if they *only* end up with 45 seats or whatever, instead of all of them.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Because a household doesn't issue it's own currency would be the most important difference, with a whole bunch of second order effects following from there.
Tangent alert
That somehow being able to issue one's own currency means different rules apply to you is one of the biggest delusions - or did I say cons? - of all time.
End of tangent alert
Going back to the election, it is my suspicion that at least one of the parties, probably the SNP but depending on the maths, will abstain from voting on the Queen's Speech.
Two other interesting questions are the following - much more interesting IMHO than which shipmates think Dave or Ed (strictly in alphabetical order) are the dog's breakfast or what comes out of the other end after its eaten it.:-
1. What mandate does a minority administration have to implement its policies? It will undoubtedly claim it has a mandate, but does it have a mandate for some of the, all of them or none of them, if ⅔ of the population voted for someone else. Is it letting down the ⅓ who actually did vote for it, if it drops some of that ⅓'s pet but controversial projects? And in some circumstances, since once you're in government, you're the government also of those who didn't vote for you, might it not be more righteous to do so?
2. If the SNP has the expected landslide in Scotland, to what extent do the proportionate percentages of voters that voted for which party specifically in England and Wales start to have a bearing on mandates?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Because a household doesn't issue it's own currency would be the most important difference, with a whole bunch of second order effects following from there.
Tangent alert
That somehow being able to issue one's own currency means different rules apply to you is one of the biggest delusions - or did I say cons? - of all time.
End of tangent alert
Going back to the election, it is my suspicion that at least one of the parties, probably the SNP but depending on the maths, will abstain from voting on the Queen's Speech.
Two other interesting questions are the following - much more interesting IMHO than which shipmates think Dave or Ed (strictly in alphabetical order) are the dog's breakfast or what comes out of the other end after its eaten it.:-
As far as I am aware, I cannot attempt to sort out my household finances by qualitative easing. In fact, I thought monetarist economics is primarily defined as the idea that you can ameliorate economic crises by manipulation of the money supply.
(That said, I agree there are some countries that can't issue their own currency, without their economies thus becoming analogous to household budgeting.)
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
One thinks this discussion of economics is interesting enough to work on its own thread if the participants wish it too, and tangential enough that it would be best if it were not here.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Two other interesting questions are the following
1. What mandate does a minority administration have to implement its policies? It will undoubtedly claim it has a mandate, but does it have a mandate for some of the, all of them or none of them, if ⅔ of the population voted for someone else. Is it letting down the ⅓ who actually did vote for it, if it drops some of that ⅓'s pet but controversial projects? And in some circumstances, since once you're in government, you're the government also of those who didn't vote for you, might it not be more righteous to do so? [\QUOTE]
Might be a case of saying "Because we put a Government together, we have more of a mandate than anyone else so that's enough to do whatever we can get the votes for in the lobbies.
[QUOTE]
2. If the SNP has the expected landslide in Scotland, to what extent do the proportionate percentages of voters that voted for which party specifically in England and Wales start to have a bearing on mandates?
3. What mandate does a majority party have for implementing policies that weren't in its manifesto (same sex marriage being the most high profile example in the last Parliament)?
Once a Parliament is elected I reckon the whole "I got a mandate" is cobblers. Government's focus shift to their backbenchers and away from the electorate. Course, that might change a bit if the numbers drive the parties to another election in six months time.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
3. What mandate does a majority party have for implementing policies that weren't in its manifesto (same sex marriage being the most high profile example in the last Parliament)?
I think you'll find that the most egregious example was the "no top-down re-organisation of the NHS" lie, which has plunged PCTs into massive debt and total disarray. The DH topic isn't even in the same league, let alone division...
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
3. What mandate does a majority party have for implementing policies that weren't in its manifesto (same sex marriage being the most high profile example in the last Parliament)?
I think you'll find that the most egregious example was the "no top-down re-organisation of the NHS" lie, which has plunged PCTs into massive debt and total disarray. The DH topic isn't even in the same league, let alone division...
And quite apart from anything else, the DH topic was actually in the 2010 Tory manifesto. OK, they had a commitment to *consider* it rather than *do* it, but anyone that was surprised and hadn't picked up the way the Tory wind was blowing hadn't read the manifesto!
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Arethosemyfeet quote:
Aside from failing to regulate the banks, which leaders worldwide are guilty of, what incompetence and mismanagement are you alleging?
"Failing to regulate the banks" has a comforting, oh well, sound to it when in fact it was catastrophic. But then Brown, Balls and Miliband had form that went back a lot further than the 2007 run on Northern Rock.
The decision to dump most of the UK's gold reserves wasn't just one of the most crass and stupid actions by a Chancellor ever, it was something that was donw to disguise bank failings already evident in 1999. Various banks were do over-stretched they were technically insolvent and the decision to sell gold was a lunatic attempt to help them back into liquidity by not only using OUR money but by manipulating the international price of gold - the sort of thing that would get an individual prosecuted in most countries: definitely pursued by the SEC and even targeted by our largely supine SFO.
It wasn't the decision to sell per se that puts the team of Gordon and the two (thick) Eds ahead in the stupid stakes, it was the way they went about doing it.
First, Brown announced he was going to do it - this alone had the effect of driving down the gold price ahead of the announced date. Then, just in case anyone missed the chance of a bargain, the Treasury (trading name of Brown-Balls-Miliband) decided to sell the stuff by auction which had the effect of driving down the price by as much as $4 an ounce.
Finally, rather than just gradually releasing the gold onto the worldwide market (as the Swiss and Belgians did) the UK dumped huge amounts at a time, further depressing the price.
To put in layman's terms: if you had a financial adviser or fund manager who acted like that, you'd have an open-and-shut case in law of mismanagement which would lead to you being compensated and them being imprisoned.
THAT is the sort of incompetence - and such is the nature of the two Eds that neither gets it, or understands why their refusal to (a) acknowledge what happened, and (b) apologise for it, matters A LOT.
(And for those who point out that the money produced from the sale was invested and earned the UK more, that amount still doesn't justify the massive losses made.)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
THAT is the sort of incompetence - and such is the nature of the two Eds that neither gets it, or understands why their refusal to (a) acknowledge what happened, and (b) apologise for it, matters A LOT.
And Gideon's leaning on the patient's oxygen supply while they're still critical wasn't in the least bit incompetent. It was cold, calculated and malicious.
If the only choices I have are stupid but well-meaning, and actively evil, then I'm afraid I'd vote for stupid.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Given that the economic mismanagement of the last 5 years has cost untold billions in lost economic growth and more in terms of blighted lives I'll take a few unforced errors in the gold sell-off over that.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Who are you describing as "actively evil"?
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
Opinion is divided over Brown's gold sale, see for example Alan Beattie in the FT, May 4th 2011 saying that it was the right thing to do:
"A precautionary reserve asset held for intervention purposes whose price is likely to fall the instant it is used to intervene is singularly pointless."
Even if it wasn't, Labour by no means have a monopoly on economic incompetence. Black Wednesday anyone?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Arethosemyfeet quote:
Given that the economic mismanagement of the last 5 years has cost untold billions in lost economic growth and more in terms of blighted lives I'll take a few unforced errors in the gold sell-off over that.
Are you referring to the fact that the UK now has a growing economy (unlike the rest of the EU) or that our rate of growth is better than the USA?
Do you really, really, not understand just how bad things were in 2010? Which bit of the note left by Liam Byrne "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam" do you think was a 'joke'?
As for blighted lives: so you seriously think things would have been any better if Brown had won another term?
The UK is not out of the financial mire yet and electing a government headed by Balls and Miliband would be a recipe for disaster.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Are you referring to the fact that the UK now has a growing economy (unlike the rest of the EU) or that our rate of growth is better than the USA?
Do you really, really, not understand just how bad things were in 2010? Which bit of the note left by Liam Byrne "Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam" do you think was a 'joke'?
As for blighted lives: so you seriously think things would have been any better if Brown had won another term?
The UK is not out of the financial mire yet and electing a government headed by Balls and Miliband would be a recipe for disaster.
The UK economy was growing in 2010, a lot faster than it is now, until Osborne sabotaged it in his glee for austerity. Even if you think trying to reduce the deficit with the economy still fragile after the crash the way the tories went about it was ideologically driven and incredibly stupid.
And yes, the note was a joke. It's a mark of how low the tories will go that they'll try to make hay out of a long running tradition of SECRET notes left for the next holder of the office.
I do think that having Brown in charge would have been (marginally) better. Not much because Labour in 2010 were still advocating dangerous cuts, but at least Brown had some understanding of economics, which is more than can be said for the PR man and the towel folder.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
The notes left by finance ministers for their successors are not state secrets, but they are light-hearted. E.g. Reginald Maudling to Jim Calaghan: "Good luck old cock, sorry to leave things in such a mess."
It is really reallly scraping the barrel to use them as election propaganda. There was not "no money" left. Yes, it really was a joke. The treasury can't run out of money because money is continually pouring into it. We were nowhere near bankruptcy, in fact a nation which issues its own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Who are you describing as "actively evil"?
George Osborne. His policies for the next five years are exactly those of the last five years. There's progress.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by touchstone quote:
a nation which issues its own currency cannot go bankrupt
I'm sure all those institutions which have had their loans reneged on by Argentina (for example) will be thrilled to learn this.
Likewise the rest of the Euro zone countries can now leave Greece, Spain, etc, alone and give them no more money with a clear conscience because, hey, they can't go bankrupt - all they've got to do is issue their own banknotes!
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
But they can't - because they're in the single currency
And although I'm glad we stayed out of the single currency the Conservative party's stance over Europe gives me great concern. It shows how right wing they've become and they frighten me to be honest
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by touchstone quote:
a nation which issues its own currency cannot go bankrupt
I'm sure all those institutions which have had their loans reneged on by Argentina (for example) will be thrilled to learn this.
Likewise the rest of the Euro zone countries can now leave Greece, Spain, etc, alone and give them no more money with a clear conscience because, hey, they can't go bankrupt - all they've got to do is issue their own banknotes!
You clearly don't understand what the Eurozone is.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm sure all those institutions which have had their loans reneged on by Argentina (for example) will be thrilled to learn this.
You clearly don't understand the Argentinian default either - a large part of the problem was the pegging of the peso to the dollar.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Are you referring to the fact that the UK now has a growing economy (unlike the rest of the EU) or that our rate of growth is better than the USA?
Germany is growing, and has grown at a faster rate than the UK for much of the period between 2010 and today.
The US has grown at a much faster rate than the UK for every quarter until the last one (and their bad result there appeared to be largely down to seasonal factors).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
... in fact a nation which issues its own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Nonsense. There are several examples of countries that have done.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
... in fact a nation which issues its own currency cannot go bankrupt.
Nonsense. There are several examples of countries that have done.
There are certainly many examples of countries defaulting on their debts. However no legal entity can declare a sovereign state bankrupt and adjudicate its debts.
The Eurozone countries are in danger of effective bankruptcy as their is a legal entity (the ECB) which has the jurisdiction to do just this.
(OK OK I admit this is a technicality. The jist of my argument is, we were never in the same position as Greece.)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Chris styles -
Ooh yes, that's another argument for which the Tories get full marks for chutzpah - Mr Cameron's claim that Britain has created more jobs than all the other EU countries put together.
What he means is that if you take the number of jobs created by EU countries that have created jobs, and subtract from that the number of jobs lost by EU countries that have lost jobs, you get a number that is lower than the number of jobs created in the UK. In other words, Britain's rate of job creation is above average in a bloc that includes Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece.
[ 05. May 2015, 21:49: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Essentially the myth starts by confusing the economics of a country with that of a household and then proceeds from there - being suitably myopic about recent events.
Funnily enough, my local Labour candidate (and MP in the previous parliament) used this analogy at the hustings a week ago. How would you say the two are different?
Because a household doesn't issue it's own currency would be the most important difference, with a whole bunch of second order effects following from there.
Can't speak for Anglican't, obviously, but I did rather read his question as actually:
"why is it ok when this Labour candidate uses the analogy, when we're all arguing here that it's wrong for the Tories to use the analogy because it doesn't work?"
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Without knowing in what way the candidate in question used the analogy, it's rather hard to judge whether and in what way it might or might not be valid in that context.
My comment about the Labour candidate (who I think was speaking in relation to deficit reduction) was just an observation, really. My question was to ask what posters thought was the difference, which I don't fully accept but that's by-the-by.
[ 05. May 2015, 22:12: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
There are certainly many examples of countries defaulting on their debts. However no legal entity can declare a sovereign state bankrupt and adjudicate its debts.....
There have been several examples of states levying execution directly on parts of the revenues, usually the customs duties, of another. More usually, though, hyperinflation is what bad states do in stead because of the practical difficulties about their creditors being unable to call in the receivers.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Chris styles -
Ooh yes, that's another argument for which the Tories get full marks for chutzpah - Mr Cameron's claim that Britain has created more jobs than all the other EU countries put together.
What he means is that if you take the number of jobs created by EU countries that have created jobs, and subtract from that the number of jobs lost by EU countries that have lost jobs, you get a number that is lower than the number of jobs created in the UK. In other words, Britain's rate of job creation is above average in a bloc that includes Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece.
Many of the jobs that have been created, of course, are the sort of paid peanuts, zero hours, part time shite that's of little use to anyone with any responsibilities or dependents but which he and his Eton/Bullingdon mates would never have had to rely on.
And you can never get it right
'cause when you're lying in bed at night
watching roaches climb the walls
You can call your daddy and he can end it all.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Out of curiosity, for I cannot vote in this national election, just why do you have elections on a weekday in the UK?
In Germany, elections are always on a Sunday, so that everybody has an easy time participating in the election.
Best I can tell, the UK seems to cope with the obvious problem that most of the voting populace actually has to go to work by opening voting early, and continuing it until really late. So without ever having participated in this, I expect that you have a "voting rush hour" with people queueing up before, and then again just after working hours?
Again for comparison, voting in Germany on Sundays is typically from 8am to 6pm, meaning that you can usually know the results before you go to bed on that day.
Is there any particular reason why the UK does not move elections to Sundays? Am I missing something here?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Out of curiosity, for I cannot vote in this national election, just why do you have elections on a weekday in the UK?
In Germany, elections are always on a Sunday, so that everybody has an easy time participating in the election.
Best I can tell, the UK seems to cope with the obvious problem that most of the voting populace actually has to go to work by opening voting early, and continuing it until really late. So without ever having participated in this, I expect that you have a "voting rush hour" with people queueing up before, and then again just after working hours?
Again for comparison, voting in Germany on Sundays is typically from 8am to 6pm, meaning that you can usually know the results before you go to bed on that day.
Is there any particular reason why the UK does not move elections to Sundays? Am I missing something here?
s'tradition innit? Actually, it has been on other days (although not often), but has settled on a Thursday for a long time now.
The main objection to Sundays (and counting on Sunday nights through to Mondays) is the horrendous overtime bill for public sector workers that get jobbed off to do it.
Thursday just about makes sense given the fact that the British are wedded to knowing the result overnight, so everyone just has to barely function in a daze on a Friday then can go to sleep for the weekend.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Didn't we have a referendum vote once on a Sunday? But I think Betjemaniac has it right.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
also, any kind of voting "rush hour" is a problem most polling stations would be happy to have. No trickle, a slight trickle, or a steady trickle IME. The big surge in a minority of locations seems to be people staggering out of pubs at 2155 and deciding to vote with 5 mins to go. But I suspect you'd have that whatever time the polls closed at.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Have we war-gamed the doomsday scenario, yet?
It's Friday, it's a hung parliament. Labour have increased their share of the vote and seats and could, theoretically, govern if the SNP will tacitly back them. Up pops Dave with a generous and comprehensive offer of Home Rule in exchange for EVEL.
Nicola - I acknowledge that we said we wouldn't work with the Tories. But remember, Labour worked with the Tories to deny Scotland her freedom. We're working with the Tories to gain Scotland's freedom.
The Tories would wear it, Murdoch and the Mail would wear it. Would enough Nationalists wear it to return Nicola to power in 2016?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Have we war-gamed the doomsday scenario, yet?
It's Friday, it's a hung parliament. Labour have increased their share of the vote and seats and could, theoretically, govern if the SNP will tacitly back them. Up pops Dave with a generous and comprehensive offer of Home Rule in exchange for EVEL.
Nicola - I acknowledge that we said we wouldn't work with the Tories. But remember, Labour worked with the Tories to deny Scotland her freedom. We're working with the Tories to gain Scotland's freedom.
The Tories would wear it, Murdoch and the Mail would wear it. Would enough Nationalists wear it to return Nicola to power in 2016?
2 articles in the New Statesman in the last 2 days have Labour as very worried that their own internal polling is right, and the public marginal polling is wrong. Apparently Labour's own figures are not showing them doing enough. We shall see.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/are-labour-losing
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/are-ashcroft-polls-wrong
BTW, given the Staggers' er, small, circulation I can't imagine these have been printed as a get-the-vote-out ploy although I suppose it's possible.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The main objection to Sundays (and counting on Sunday nights through to Mondays) is the horrendous overtime bill for public sector workers that get jobbed off to do it.
Oh, so this is treated like a job for civil servants? In Germany being an election official is an "Ehrenamt" (honorary office) to which volunteers get appointed by the communal election authorities. So it's run more or less for free...
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Have we war-gamed the doomsday scenario, yet?
It's Friday, it's a hung parliament. Labour have increased their share of the vote and seats and could, theoretically, govern if the SNP will tacitly back them. Up pops Dave with a generous and comprehensive offer of Home Rule in exchange for EVEL.
I think the war-game scenarios are why we've seen so little of the cabinet and shadow cabinet in this campaign. It's all been about the party leaders, but where's George Osborne? Where's Ed Balls? Where's Iain Duncan Smith and Harriet Harman? They've all done some visible campaigning, but nowhere near as much as before.
My guess is that they've been drawing up a number of proposals for coalitions, one for each conceivable outcome.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
I'd imagine the traditional objection to Sunday voting was the same as the one that used to prevent shops opening on Sundays, that of not working on the Sabbath,of which the law has only changed in the last few decades.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Have we war-gamed the doomsday scenario, yet?
It's Friday, it's a hung parliament. Labour have increased their share of the vote and seats and could, theoretically, govern if the SNP will tacitly back them. Up pops Dave with a generous and comprehensive offer of Home Rule in exchange for EVEL.
I think the war-game scenarios are why we've seen so little of the cabinet and shadow cabinet in this campaign. It's all been about the party leaders, but where's George Osborne? Where's Ed Balls? Where's Iain Duncan Smith and Harriet Harman? They've all done some visible campaigning, but nowhere near as much as before.
My guess is that they've been drawing up a number of proposals for coalitions, one for each conceivable outcome.
Or, alternatively, the parties concerned have decided that this time round everyone on your list is electoral poison and is to be kept as far from as many cameras as possible without it looking like a total disappearing act. In fact, "sources" have pretty well told me as much in the case of Harman and Balls.
Balls is also worried about his seat, so spending quite a bit more time in Leeds than usual.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I've voted at a number of different times of the day, before, during and after "working hours", and at a few different places. Never been party to anything like a rush hour. In fact last time I voted I was party to the two officials remarking that they hadn't been expecting anyone else.
Although I do recall in the last election, there were scenes of large queues and people being refused the chance to vote. I seem to recall that it led to a clarification on the rules, such that if you had clearly arrived at the polling station prior to the 10pm deadline, you could still be issued with a ballot paper and cast your vote after the polls technically closed at 10pm.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I realise "sources" is a bit weasel, but there you go. Let's rather say "Westminster pub chat."
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
I'd imagine the traditional objection to Sunday voting was the same as the one that used to prevent shops opening on Sundays, that of not working on the Sabbath,of which the law has only changed in the last few decades.
I've also heard it suggested that sermons prior to an elections might influence voters choice, so putting the election day as far after the Sunday sermon allowed the influence of a half-forgotten sermon to fade. On the otherhand, Fridays were pay day and workers with cash in their pocket stopping off at the pub on the way out of work were also unlikely to cast a fully free and informed vote, likewise if struggling with a hang over and a nagging from the wife for drinking the weeks pay on a Saturday.
So, Thursday it is.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The main objection to Sundays (and counting on Sunday nights through to Mondays) is the horrendous overtime bill for public sector workers that get jobbed off to do it.
Oh, so this is treated like a job for civil servants?
More accurately, it *is* a job for civil servants here.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The main objection to Sundays (and counting on Sunday nights through to Mondays) is the horrendous overtime bill for public sector workers that get jobbed off to do it.
Oh, so this is treated like a job for civil servants? In Germany being an election official is an "Ehrenamt" (honorary office) to which volunteers get appointed by the communal election authorities. So it's run more or less for free...
That says something very impressive about the civic culture of Germany. In the UK Civil Servants (Or in this instance Local Government Officers) pride themselves on their impartiality, so they are the obvious people to be in charge of elections with candidates and agents looking over their shoulder to ensure they haven't gone rogue. On the one occasion I was an election agent in a local council election there were three ballot papers where a clear indication had been given but not in the approved manner. We were gathered together, shown the ballot papers and all agreed that the indication was clear and the votes were allowed to stand. Two for the Tories and one for the Lib Dem, as I recall. My favourite story along those lines, btw, is a similar conversation where the elector had written 'c**t' next to the names of all the candidates except for one who had been designated 'good guy'. The returning officer showed the ballot to the candidates who solemnly agreed that the intention was clear and the ballot was added to the pile of the victorious party.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
I'd imagine the traditional objection to Sunday voting was the same as the one that used to prevent shops opening on Sundays, that of not working on the Sabbath,of which the law has only changed in the last few decades.
I've also heard it suggested that sermons prior to an elections might influence voters choice, so putting the election day as far after the Sunday sermon allowed the influence of a half-forgotten sermon to fade. On the otherhand, Fridays were pay day and workers with cash in their pocket stopping off at the pub on the way out of work were also unlikely to cast a fully free and informed vote, likewise if struggling with a hang over and a nagging from the wife for drinking the weeks pay on a Saturday.
So, Thursday it is.
Apparently, there are laws against that sort of thing (political sermons, that is, not drinking the weeks wages). In the 19th Century an election in Ireland was ruled null and void because the Catholic Bishop announced that no decent Catholic could vote for Parnell. More recently, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, was deposed because, among other misdemeanours, he got a bunch of Imams to tell the faithful to vote for him as part of their religious duty. Still, quite possibly people might have thought 'belt and braces'.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
That says something very impressive about the civic culture of Germany. ... My favourite story along those lines, btw, is a similar conversation where the elector had written 'c**t' next to the names of all the candidates except for one who had been designated 'good guy'. The returning officer showed the ballot to the candidates who solemnly agreed that the intention was clear and the ballot was added to the pile of the victorious party.
Well, perhaps there is more than one way to skin a civic culture, i.e., this strikes me as impressive in a different way. I'm dead certain that in Germany this particular ballot would have landed on the "invalid" pile without any further ado. Indeed, only ballots having a clearly discernible mark in the right place would escape that fate.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
My favourite story along those lines, btw, is a similar conversation where the elector had written 'c**t' next to the names of all the candidates except for one who had been designated 'good guy'. The returning officer showed the ballot to the candidates who solemnly agreed that the intention was clear and the ballot was added to the pile of the victorious party.
Is that true? I so hope it is.
Here's a good Guardian article about why austerity hasn't and doesn't work. It's fairly long, but it's pretty good. It seems that a lot of people I've spoken to are somehow convinced that beating the most vulnerable over the head, while enriching the very richest and widening the gap between the 95% and the %5 at the very top is inevitable.
Not only is it immoral, it doesn't work.
Austerity and the myth of 'trickle down' are demonstrably not fit for purpose, unless you happen to be a member of the elite few who also happens to be entirely driven by self-interest, in which case it's fit for your purpose, which is making yourself richer and ignore the rest.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Have we war-gamed the doomsday scenario, yet?
It's Friday, it's a hung parliament. Labour have increased their share of the vote and seats and could, theoretically, govern if the SNP will tacitly back them. Up pops Dave with a generous and comprehensive offer of Home Rule in exchange for EVEL.
Nicola - I acknowledge that we said we wouldn't work with the Tories. But remember, Labour worked with the Tories to deny Scotland her freedom. We're working with the Tories to gain Scotland's freedom.
The Tories would wear it, Murdoch and the Mail would wear it. Would enough Nationalists wear it to return Nicola to power in 2016?
Prior to the referendum, Gordon Brown, with the backing of David Cameron, offered a modern form of Home Rule if Scotland voted No.
Scotland did vote No, and didn't get what was offered.
There would be deep cynicism in Scotland about any such offer from Cameron now. I don't think it could happen.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
My favourite story along those lines, btw, is a similar conversation where the elector had written 'c**t' next to the names of all the candidates except for one who had been designated 'good guy'. The returning officer showed the ballot to the candidates who solemnly agreed that the intention was clear and the ballot was added to the pile of the victorious party.
Is that true? I so hope it is.
Here's a good Guardian article about why austerity hasn't and doesn't work. It's fairly long, but it's pretty good. It seems that a lot of people I've spoken to are somehow convinced that beating the most vulnerable over the head, while enriching the very richest and widening the gap between the 95% and the %5 at the very top is inevitable.
Not only is it immoral, it doesn't work.
Austerity and the myth of 'trickle down' are demonstrably not fit for purpose, unless you happen to be a member of the elite few who also happens to be entirely driven by self-interest, in which case it's fit for your purpose, which is making yourself richer and ignore the rest.
what I like about the "myth of trickle down" is that apparently it was an invention entirely of those that use it as a line of attack:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/sorry-but-trickle-down-economics-doesnt-exist-and-never-has-done/
which argues for either "any attack will do if we can make it stick", or, alternatively, "I don't understand economics but I've demonised my opponent to the extent that I'm prepared to believe anything of them.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Not really. It's more that despite assertions that "The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all.", it always seems to be the owners who end up rolling in it whilst those workers are struggling to make ends meet.
I have a low opinion of the Tories not because I've "demonised" them, but because I went to school with them, and heard their philosophy, and the utter disdain and despite in which they held the ordinary working person, totally convinced as they were that you were a dispicable failure if you weren't as rich as they were. That's where the demonisation happens - the unemployed, portrayed as scroungers; the low paid, portrayed as ungrateful for the crumbs they're allowed.
[ 06. May 2015, 12:00: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not really. It's more that despite assertions that "The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all.", it always seems to be the owners who end up rolling in it whilst those workers are struggling to make ends meet.
I have a low opinion of the Tories not because I've "demonised" them, but because I went to school with them, and heard their philosophy, and the utter disdain and despite in which they held the ordinary working person, totally convinced as they were that you were a dispicable failure if you weren't as rich as they were. That's where the demonisation happens - the unemployed, portrayed as scroungers; the low paid, portrayed as ungrateful for the crumbs they're allowed.
You base it on what other children at school said???
FWIW I had the opposite experience with my own family in terms of "not for the likes of us" to which my questions were:
"what isn't?"
"why?"
"who says?"
Everyone can reach their own conclusions about how the world works, and how best to deal with things, but I'd give no credence whatsoever to anything an under 18 said about politics or society when I was an under 18 too - what did they or I *really* know? For one thing, if I was dismissing them, and their philosophy, it might ask me to think what people thought about me and mine. Or is it different if it's other people?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
From a distance*, I'm fully expecting that someone faced with a coalition/deal is going to deeply regret something they said during the election campaign.
I'm just not sure which someone it's going to be.
*I did have the 'pleasure' of being in the country for nearly 2 weeks of the campaign.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Also, what really strikes me from looking at the results of the 2010 election is that the rise of the SNP has no ability to *directly* hurt the Conservatives, the party the SNP appear to have the greatest antipathy for. It's Labour and the Lib Dems who are set for heavy seat losses up there.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
FWIW, neither of my parents went to university. Both their sons ended up with PhDs. We both went to a rough-as-a-badger's-arse comp, and the only Tories I got to mix with were the old-school noblesse oblige landed gentry in the village - who always treated me kindly and without prejudice. I recognise the people that both Karl and Betjemanic talk about.
Putting all that to once side, who's got richer over the last five years, who's got poorer? If the answer is only the very rich got richer, and everyone else got poorer, then that tells you where the Coalition's priorities lay.
It's not jealousy or greed or class warfare or envy on my part to say I'm not at all happy with that, and I'll be voting accordingly. If you want to further line the pockets of the already-rich, then you do what you must.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, what really strikes me from looking at the results of the 2010 election is that the rise of the SNP has no ability to *directly* hurt the Conservatives, the party the SNP appear to have the greatest antipathy for. It's Labour and the Lib Dems who are set for heavy seat losses up there.
I've been saying this for weeks - the Tories are still on 17% in Scotland (same as 2010) because their voters have got nowhere else to go. It only needs the SNP to do not-quite-well-enough and the Tories are going to pick up seats where they came a close second. The SNP can potentially hurt Labour and the LibDems, but can also potentially help the Tories.
None of this may happen, but I'm *still* going to say it again, you can't assume uniform swing. The SNP are going to do well, but there's a strong possibility they aren't going to do as well as they think (note "possibility.")
There's at least one scenario where the Tories, admittedly vastly outnumbered by the SNP, are going to be the second largest party in Scotland on Friday morning with up to 4 seats.
Or they could lose the one they've got. Or any other permutation. But the former really wouldn't surprise me.
I think I can make a prediction now, that goes a bit further than I've done over the life of this thread.
Tomorrow, if you like staying up for elections, is going to be *the* one to stay up for in our lifetimes. First, the prediction: Tory/Liberal coalition.
However, that's not going to be clear until Friday morning. I suspect that tomorrow night is going to be chaos, with swings left and right, incumbency factor counting or not from seat to seat, and seats changing hands with no real logic throughout the early hours. The Tories and Labour may end the night with as many seats as they have currently, but different seats...
Well-known people are going to get defenestrated but their party will win, seats will change hands that nobody expects to, and others that really should won't. Clegg, for example is safe enough, Carswell is nailed on, I don't think Farage is going to do it, Balls could be in trouble, Danny Alexander might get over the line, as will Charlie Kennedy, Caroline Lucas might lose her seat, so might Glenda Jackson.
It's going to be absolutely fascinating, chaotic, worrying, and compelling. Tomorrow might finally be the only bit of this dismal campaign worth bothering with.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The prediction I can make is that the arcane UK art of tactical voting and the complete inability to translate voting percentage into seats will do my head in.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The prediction I can make is that the arcane UK art of tactical voting and the complete inability to translate voting percentage into seats will do my head in.
at least you don't have to stay up for it
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Putting all that to once side, who's got richer over the last five years, who's got poorer? If the answer is only the very rich got richer, and everyone else got poorer, then that tells you where the Coalition's priorities lay.
I'm pretty sure I'm not one of the very rich, but I'm equally sure that I've got richer over the last five years. I imagine a great many not-very-rich people could say the same.
The narrative that it's only the top 1% who are doing well while everyone else is getting poorer and poorer just doesn't ring true.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not really. It's more that despite assertions that "The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all.", it always seems to be the owners who end up rolling in it whilst those workers are struggling to make ends meet.
I have a low opinion of the Tories not because I've "demonised" them, but because I went to school with them, and heard their philosophy, and the utter disdain and despite in which they held the ordinary working person, totally convinced as they were that you were a dispicable failure if you weren't as rich as they were. That's where the demonisation happens - the unemployed, portrayed as scroungers; the low paid, portrayed as ungrateful for the crumbs they're allowed.
You base it on what other children at school said???
That and that Tory policies since then have reinforced my conceptions gained in those days, which is why I'm not in the slightest bit surprised hey've been fucking over the unemployed, the disabled and the sick for the last five years whilst cutting taxes for people already doing very well. quote:
FWIW I had the opposite experience with my own family in terms of "not for the likes of us" to which my questions were:
"what isn't?"
"why?"
"who says?"
Everyone can reach their own conclusions about how the world works, and how best to deal with things, but I'd give no credence whatsoever to anything an under 18 said about politics or society when I was an under 18 too - what did they or I *really* know? For one thing, if I was dismissing them, and their philosophy, it might ask me to think what people thought about me and mine. Or is it different if it's other people?
It wasn't what they knew or didn't know. It was what they hated. Starting with me. I knew exactly what they thought of me and my philosophies; they made that very clear with every superior comment, every fist, every foot. I'll vote for them when Satan drives to work in a snowplough.
[ 06. May 2015, 15:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Putting all that to once side, who's got richer over the last five years, who's got poorer? If the answer is only the very rich got richer, and everyone else got poorer, then that tells you where the Coalition's priorities lay.
Indeed, if only in general the main beneficiaries are the better off who less need to get richer, then the priorities are skewed. Especially when the claim is being made that we're all in this together.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
as will Charlie Kennedy,
You have more faith in Charles Kennedy than he does in himself. Though that's not to say he won't get in; all his constituents know why he's not actively campaigning.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Have we war-gamed the doomsday scenario, yet?
It's Friday, it's a hung parliament. Labour have increased their share of the vote and seats and could, theoretically, govern if the SNP will tacitly back them. Up pops Dave with a generous and comprehensive offer of Home Rule in exchange for EVEL.
Nicola - I acknowledge that we said we wouldn't work with the Tories. But remember, Labour worked with the Tories to deny Scotland her freedom. We're working with the Tories to gain Scotland's freedom.
The Tories would wear it, Murdoch and the Mail would wear it. Would enough Nationalists wear it to return Nicola to power in 2016?
Prior to the referendum, Gordon Brown, with the backing of David Cameron, offered a modern form of Home Rule if Scotland voted No.
Scotland did vote No, and didn't get what was offered.
There would be deep cynicism in Scotland about any such offer from Cameron now. I don't think it could happen.
Presumably less cynicism, though, if the offer was in writing and with Nicola and Alex's signatures next to George and Dave's? Not being funny, but Nicola Sturgeon has spent her entire adult life working for Scottish Independence. If this happens she gets 80% at a stroke with a reasonable outside chance of the other 20% if the EU referendum breaks the right way. I can't imagine that she hasn't weighed up the pros and cons over a wee dram with a few close colleagues. And if it hasn't occurred to Dave yet, I bet it's occurred to George.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The narrative that it's only the top 1% who are doing well while everyone else is getting poorer and poorer just doesn't ring true.
Except that government statistics inconveniently disagree with you.
Take-away headlines are: - Since the start of the economic downturn, median household income for the overall population has fallen by 3.8%, after adjusting for inflation
- However, when looking separately at non-retired and retired households, the median income for non-retired households fell by 6.4% between 2007/08 and 2011/12
- The average amount paid in indirect taxes by the middle fifth of non-retired households also fell between 2007/08 and 2011/12, from £6,400 to £6,000, partly reflecting falling average expenditure. However, as a proportion of gross income, indirect taxes rose from 15.6% to 16.2% over this period, due to gross income falling at a faster rate
So, no. Even you, Marvin, though you're convinced otherwise.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I think the suggestion that elections have never been held on Sundays in the UK almost certainly goes back to a time when it would have been regarded as wicked to hold an election on the Lord's Day.
As for people lurching out of the pubs and voting at 10pm, I've worked in many polling stations and that's not my experience. During the last hour or two throughput tails off markedly. There's also usually a bit of a lull in the early afternoon. The busiest time is usually from c 4pm to c 8pm. The scandals about people not managing to vote in time were caused by Councils trying to economise by employing too few staff. As a result, very long queues built up which it was not possible to reduce enough in time.
Also, it only takes two or three people to turn up without their poll cards, especially with some other sort of muddle like those who got on the register at the last minute and so aren't where their address is, for a queue of justifiably irritated people to build up behind them.
So, some bits of advice:-
1. Have your poll card and take it with you.
2. Don't leave voting until the last moment.
3. If you're doing some unusual like exercising a proxy vote, go early in the day, or just after lunch.
Even if you think you are entitled to inconvenience the staff because they're just local authority jobsworths, and you've paid your Council Tax, you owe it to your fellow electors not to.
Incidentally, most poll staff aren't ordinary local authority staff. A lot of them are retired, part timers, mature students etc. And they aren't all that well paid.
[ 06. May 2015, 15:57: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
From a distance, I'm fully expecting that someone faced with a coalition/deal is going to deeply regret something they said during the election campaign.
I'm just not sure which someone it's going to be. ...
Second post
Bang on Orfeo. I'm sure you're right. Tuition fees will be nothing in comparison.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Reflecting on the bits and pieces I heard while I was in that part of the world...
Can I just say how breathtakingly stupid the whole "we'll prevent any new taxes for 5 years" bit was? Dear God, if you're Prime Minister it would really help if you had a basic grasp of constitutional law.
Alternatively, it's very nasty to be banking on your audience having no grasp of constitutional law.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm pretty sure I'm not one of the very rich, but I'm equally sure that I've got richer over the last five years. I imagine a great many not-very-rich people could say the same.
The narrative that it's only the top 1% who are doing well while everyone else is getting poorer and poorer just doesn't ring true.
I've got better off, but that's because I was very early in my career in 2010 and have since moved up the pay scale (though that scale has itself been frozen). It was also aided by moving to Scotland where basic pay for teachers is better. Had I remained in England, where pay scales have been largely abolished, I would likely be substantially worse off. By its very nature the economy will always have some people bucking the wider trend, but the trend is very clear that real incomes are substantially down on 2010.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
May I ask how old you are, Marvin? I ask because I rather think that pensioners have done rather better than most folk in the last few years. Do you fall into that category?
Cynics would say that the Tories, knowing that older folk are more likely to vote, have been "sweetening" them. I couldn't possibly comment.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Nate Silver, the psephologist who was made famous by correctly calling the last US general election, has given his verdict on tomorrow's election.
In short:
- no one gets a majority
- Tories win most seats
- Tories + Lib Dems < Labour + SNP
- Nick "30 pieces of silver" Clegg keeps his seat
I would then see that as a minority government and likely a 2nd election this year.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
If Silver is correct, I expect Cameron to claim victory, as the largest party, while the right-wing press start a hue and cry that a Miliband govt would be illegitimate, even with a Commons majority. Interesting to see if Miliband has the balls to go for a majority, (if he has one), or if the Blairites will squeak and groan and prefer a Tory govt. Or maybe Silver is wrong!
So I might vote Labour so that they can prop up a minority Tory govt - yes, makes perfect sense. This politics business is easy really.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Nate Silver's predictions are generally bankable (or bettable, if that's your wish). And I see that one company are offering new customers 3/1 if the Conservatives get most seats. I'm guessing that offer might not be available for much longer.
A more difficult call will be how long the post election negotiations will take to either produce a viable government or an early re-election. It's looking pretty messy.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Putting all that to once side, who's got richer over the last five years, who's got poorer? If the answer is only the very rich got richer, and everyone else got poorer, then that tells you where the Coalition's priorities lay.
I'm pretty sure I'm not one of the very rich, but I'm equally sure that I've got richer over the last five years. I imagine a great many not-very-rich people could say the same.
The narrative that it's only the top 1% who are doing well while everyone else is getting poorer and poorer just doesn't ring true.
I worked out my "hard working household" (i.e. me) was about £3500 p.a. worse off in real terms in 2014-15 than in 2009-10. This was largely due to public sector wage freeze and increased pension contributions. But I was lucky - I could still live on that. Many weren't so lucky, and tomorrow I'll be voting with them in mind.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nate Silver's predictions are generally bankable (or bettable, if that's your wish). And I see that one company are offering new customers 3/1 if the Conservatives get most seats. I'm guessing that offer might not be available for much longer.
A more difficult call will be how long the post election negotiations will take to either produce a viable government or an early re-election. It's looking pretty messy.
I think that Cameron can stall for quite a while, while his troops vilify Miliband as illegitimate. But at some point, he has to test the 'will of the house'. If he gets a majority, he's got 5 more years; if not, will the Daily Mail permit Miliband to present a Queen's speech? FFS, he's a Jew!
And will the Blairites have the stomach for the fight? Will Cameron ritually disembowel himself? Hmm.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
May I ask how old you are, Marvin? I ask because I rather think that pensioners have done rather better than most folk in the last few years. Do you fall into that category?
Cynics would say that the Tories, knowing that older folk are more likely to vote, have been "sweetening" them. I couldn't possibly comment.
I doubt it, to be honest ......I think you may be barking up a wrong tree there.....the impression I get from his posts is that Marvin is around the 40s mark
Leo Angloid and I are more in that category. I'm a floating voter who seems to be leaning more and more left of centre with increasing age, Angloid's a Guardian reader and Leo's a red hot socialist if anything. Yes I'm being flippant but perhaps you get my drift
And yes after having done the easier targets they'll be after us next.....
People vote for a particular party for all sorts of reasons , not necessarily to do with age or ones position......
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
They can sweeten all they like, but as long as this crone can hobble to a polling station they'll not get my vote. It wisnae them brought in the welfare state.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
They can sweeten all they like, but as long as this crone can hobble to a polling station they'll not get my vote. It wisnae them brought in the welfare state.
I've just looked at an analysis site (Electoral Calculus) and it's even worse than I thought. There is absolutely no point at all in my voting for anyone. I might as well not have the franchise. I might just as well sit at home on my suffragist's chair at my suffragist's table* and weep.
I suppose I have to recognise that if I live in a constituency where most of the people who vote want a Tory government, that's democracy.
*The suffragist concerned was Charlotte Despard, and my grandparents bought some of her furniture at a sale, possibly after it had been removed by bailiffs to raise the money to pay her share of her servants' national insurance which she regarded as taxation without representation. The morality of her position takes a bit of unravelling there. On a number of occasions, her friends bought the furniture and gave it back to her, but on the last occasion, she asked them not to. She had very good Arts and Crafts movement type taste. Pity we lost some of the dining chairs. I only have the two carvers.
I'm putting that irrelevancy in instead of bad language. The MP has been joining in the monstering of Ed Miliband, who very politely responded by describing him as a "decent man" despite the rudeness. He is going to be my MP again. And the Tory councillors are going to be my Tory councillors again.
Shall I wear my suffragette sash to the polling station?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
They can sweeten all they like, but as long as this crone can hobble to a polling station they'll not get my vote. It wisnae them brought in the welfare state.
No, it wisnae.
But only because Labour won the 1945 election. The Beveridge Report which spawned was however written by a Liberal, and commissioned by a national government led by the Tories.
FWIW, Labour was the last of the the then 3 main parties to commit to implementing it, and then only after considerable internal opposition, led primarily by Bevin, had been overcome.
There's a regrettable tendency IME for people not to take on board the fact that the post war consensus was exactly that, a consensus. Yes Labour did it, but they did it at a time when either of the other parties would arguably also have done it. Some achievement.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
They can sweeten all they like, but as long as this crone can hobble to a polling station they'll not get my vote. It wisnae them brought in the welfare state.
I've just looked at an analysis site (Electoral Calculus) and it's even worse than I thought. There is absolutely no point at all in my voting for anyone. I might as well not have the franchise. I might just as well sit at home on my suffragist's chair at my suffragist's table* and weep.
I suppose I have to recognise that if I live in a constituency where most of the people who vote want a Tory government, that's democracy.
*The suffragist concerned was Charlotte Despard, and my grandparents bought some of her furniture at a sale, possibly after it had been removed by bailiffs to raise the money to pay her share of her servants' national insurance which she regarded as taxation without representation. The morality of her position takes a bit of unravelling there. On a number of occasions, her friends bought the furniture and gave it back to her, but on the last occasion, she asked them not to. She had very good Arts and Crafts movement type taste. Pity we lost some of the dining chairs. I only have the two carvers.
I'm putting that irrelevancy in instead of bad language. The MP has been joining in the monstering of Ed Miliband, who very politely responded by describing him as a "decent man" despite the rudeness. He is going to be my MP again. And the Tory councillors are going to be my Tory councillors again.
Shall I wear my suffragette sash to the polling station?
FWIW, this is one of the few elections where your vote really might count (assuming it's for the red team - the argument's actually the same for the blues but you're clearly not one).
All the arguments about legitimacy, regardless of the constitutional position where I understand entirely that it doesn't matter, are going to be informed by number of seats and share of the vote. Although you won't get a red person in your seat, your vote will add to their overall total and potentially help with the arguments when it comes down to it.
Of course, it will be cancelled out by my folorn probable blue vote in one of the reddest of red constituencies, but every vote is going to count more than most elections tomorrow, even if it doesn't translate into seats.
Hope that's a small crumb of comfort. It is to me. Vote for what you believe in with pride.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
They can sweeten all they like, but as long as this crone can hobble to a polling station they'll not get my vote. It wisnae them brought in the welfare state.
No, it wisnae.
But only because Labour won the 1945 election. The Beveridge Report which spawned was however written by a Liberal, and commissioned by a national government led by the Tories.
FWIW, Labour was the last of the the then 3 main parties to commit to implementing it, and then only after considerable internal opposition, led primarily by Bevin, had been overcome.
There's a regrettable tendency IME for people not to take on board the fact that the post war consensus was exactly that, a consensus. Yes Labour did it, but they did it at a time when either of the other parties would arguably also have done it. Some achievement.
Just to clarify, reading that back again, the welfare state itself was an undoubted achievement, and one that we should all be proud of. I just see it as a British achievement, not a Labour one.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Shall I wear my suffragette sash to the polling station?
ooh, that's reminded me, I should wear my replica suffragette pins tomorrow (I have 4 which I do occasionally wear, and some replica buttons for when I get round to making a Belle Epoque dress...maybe I need to make a sash? ).
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
And it wasn't the Labour party either: the foundations of the welfare state were laid by the Liberal government with pensions in 1908, and health and unemployment insurance in 1911.
The Beveridge Commission met during the first years of WWII and the coalition decided to publish the report during war largely because Brendan Bracken said it couldn't wait. The decision to wait to implement it was not popular and it was the Tory Reform Committee that forced a vote on the issue.
So, Firenze, unsure who you'll be voting for
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I have a whole suffragette outfit; I could wear that, but I suspect my family would pretend they didn't know me. Also, it's a white satin full length frock. Not flattering on a middle aged woman of ..um.. substantial proportions.
Penny quote:
my suffragist's chair
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on
:
It's at times like this I really miss Ken.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And it wasn't the Labour party either: the foundations of the welfare state were laid by the Liberal government with pensions in 1908, and health and unemployment insurance in 1911.
The Beveridge Commission met during the first years of WWII and the coalition decided to publish the report during war largely because Brendan Bracken said it couldn't wait. The decision to wait to implement it was not popular and it was the Tory Reform Committee that forced a vote on the issue.
So, Firenze, unsure who you'll be voting for
Insofar as there was a postwar consensus (and unlike my old teacher Ben Pimlott I think there was), the welfare state was part of it: if anythign, the Liberals in 1945 were the least enthusiastic about it, Beveridge's election as a Liberal MP notwithstanding. The Edwardian unemployment insurance programme was not opposed by the Conservatives and IIRC the health insurance debate didn't divide on purely party lines. The Conservatives introduced contributory, non means-tested Old Age Pensions in 1926 to supplement the 1909 scheme. Neville Chamberlain, as Minister of Health, sponsored some excellent social housing.
All that said, in the last two generations there is no doubt that Labour have been much more enthusiastic about the welfare state, not least because they see the state as part of the solution rather than part of the problem. If the welfare state matters to you more than anything else, the Conservatives, as they are at present, won't be your vote of first choice.
[ 06. May 2015, 21:19: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I have a whole suffragette outfit; I could wear that, but I suspect my family would pretend they didn't know me. Also, it's a white satin full length frock. Not flattering on a middle aged woman of ..um.. substantial proportions.
Penny quote:
my suffragist's chair
I hold it in trust.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've just looked at an analysis site (Electoral Calculus) and it's even worse than I thought. There is absolutely no point at all in my voting for anyone. I might as well not have the franchise. I might just as well sit at home on my suffragist's chair at my suffragist's table* and weep.
I suppose I have to recognise that if I live in a constituency where most of the people who vote want a Tory government, that's democracy.
Maybe not. There have been murmurs among the chatterati in the last few days that if the result is close, Cameron is preparing to look not just at seats won but at percentage of votes cast in an attempt to hold on to power and de-legitimise Parliamentary procedure by appealing to the Tory media. So maybe voting just got that little bit more important again, even in safe seats.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
That does help a bit. Predictions show a deep drop in LibDem votes, a huge rise in Other (that'll be mostly Ukip, but includes Greens) and an increase in Labour, more than LibDems this time, but less than Other, with a small drop in Conservatives - still more than everyone else. I'd like to vote Green, I always used to vote Liberal, when available, except when I tactically voted to keep a Labour MP in, and if the vote number is going to be counted (abandoning that fantasy whereby the popular vote intends a result of more seats for the party with fewer votes), I'll have to do that again.
I dread another five years with the impending cuts. At least, at the moment, I can afford to donate to the food banks.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Putting all that to once side, who's got richer over the last five years, who's got poorer? If the answer is only the very rich got richer, and everyone else got poorer, then that tells you where the Coalition's priorities lay.
I'm pretty sure I'm not one of the very rich, but I'm equally sure that I've got richer over the last five years. I imagine a great many not-very-rich people could say the same.
The narrative that it's only the top 1% who are doing well while everyone else is getting poorer and poorer just doesn't ring true.
I worked out my "hard working household" (i.e. me) was about £3500 p.a. worse off in real terms in 2014-15 than in 2009-10. This was largely due to public sector wage freeze and increased pension contributions. But I was lucky - I could still live on that. Many weren't so lucky, and tomorrow I'll be voting with them in mind.
Likewise, I'm significantly worse off financially. Part of that is personal circumstances beyond the control of government. But, mostly that I've had no real pay rise during that period while living costs have significantly increased. Like Adeodatus, I'm still fortunate enough to be able to live within that income.
I have majorly bucked that trend over the last six months - by getting a part time overseas job which pays significantly more than I'd get in the UK university system.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've just looked at an analysis site (Electoral Calculus) and it's even worse than I thought. There is absolutely no point at all in my voting for anyone. I might as well not have the franchise. I might just as well sit at home on my suffragist's chair at my suffragist's table* and weep.
I suppose I have to recognise that if I live in a constituency where most of the people who vote want a Tory government, that's democracy.
Maybe not. There have been murmurs among the chatterati in the last few days that if the result is close, Cameron is preparing to look not just at seats won but at percentage of votes cast in an attempt to hold on to power and de-legitimise Parliamentary procedure by appealing to the Tory media. So maybe voting just got that little bit more important again, even in safe seats.
Yes, I've been expecting this. Which is one of the reasons I voted Labour in a seat they can't win. It's possible that every vote will matter this time around...
AFZ
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
Apologies for the double-post but just in case (miraculously) I turn out to be right, I wanted the bragging rights...
Here’s my prediction. I made this a week ago – putting together the various polls I trust and one assumption – that Labour will hold on to a few more seats in Scotland than the polls suggest:
Conservatives 274
Labour 291
Lib Dem 12
UKIP 2
Green 1
SNP 49
Plaid Cymru 3
Northern Irish parties 18
AFZ
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't see how Cameron can de-legitimize the process. If he has a majority in the Commons, he is PM, if not, not. Is he going to be the first losing PM to stay in power? The reputation of the Tory party would never recover, even if the right-wing press froth at the mouth at the prospect of Miliband. Of course, the Tories know full well that parliament recognizes MPs as the representatives of constituencies, and not political parties, but maybe they want to fool people.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Here’s my prediction.
You'll probably be right about the NI Parties. But, the other numbers are all up for grab as far as I can see. It's going to be an interesting 24h. Even if I have to be an observer this time round as my ballot paper didn't arrive.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
I don't know which opinion I find more intriguing to contemplate coming out of the birthplace of the Westminster system
- The idea that the party with the most seats is the only legitimate party to rule
or - The idea that minority governments can't work and therefore rock solid coalitions must be created
Both seem equally based on a misjudgment of the basis of what the Westminster system actually is.
I've said this before. If you Brits embraced a true minority government, where issues were voted on one by one and only confidence or budget votes lost would mean a government would fall, you'd actually get a lot more done.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I recall saying the same sort of thing in 2010. That, we might finally get a chance for Westminster to have a true cooperative government, where votes follow whether an Act is good or not, rather than the usual competative government model. I was hoping that the experience in Scotland, with devolution allowing a much more cooperative style of government to develop (granted, in part because all parties wanted to see the thing work even if that meant working together a lot more) might inform Westminster politics.
But, things weren't to be and we had business as usual with competative politics. The Conservatives (propped up by LibDems) vs Labour. No one thought about forming a government that would put forward policies and legislation that were the product of inter-party cooperation to be something that the majority of the population would agree with (or, at least find not too objectionable). Instead, business as usual to form a government where you drop the pet libra-doodle a few bones to allow a government to put forward policies that only a minority of the population agreed with (and very many find highly objectionable).
Maybe with predictions of no coalition working (unless SNP and Lab do form a coalition, which I find very unlikely) we can have a minority government that is forced to work cooperatively. But, I fear it's too hard to teach new tricks to old dogs and we'll end up with the usual Westmonster idiocy and a rapid collapse of the government forcing us to go through another election within a year or two.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ha. I no longer have the belief that either politicians or the media will pay attention to the constitution if it suits them not to. There was ample evidence here in Australia in 2010 that plenty of people think they are directly electing a Prime Minister. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were calls for a 2nd election on the grounds that this one produced "no result", despite it actually producing the 650 results it is supposed to.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
What Alan said.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Of course, it will be cancelled out by my folorn probable blue vote in one of the reddest of red constituencies, but every vote is going to count more than most elections tomorrow, even if it doesn't translate into seats.
Hope that's a small crumb of comfort. It is to me. Vote for what you believe in with pride.
You have my sympathy. In the days when I lived in Oxford, voting anything other than red or yellow was always a lost cause. A few miles further north, or west, though, that's traditionally been a safe blue area.
Our long-standing Conservative MP has just retired, so I don't know how much of his support will transfer to his replacement. I think she will do all right, though: against HS2, think before you frack, save the local hospital, and hurrah for the rural life, which will all go down well here.
[ 07. May 2015, 06:16: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Let me follow on from my last post, because the very essence of the problem just presented itself to me.
The purpose of an election is to elect a Parliament.
In recent decades the entire political and media machine has been directed at having us believe the purpose of an election is to elect a government.
EDIT: This is precisely because politicians are interested in government, not Parliament. They find Parliament bloody annoying. The Westminster system is, in theory, one where the Executive branch is answerable to Parliament, but these days the reality is that governments see Parliament as being there to rubber-stamp the policies that government has already developed.
[ 07. May 2015, 06:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Of course, it will be cancelled out by my folorn probable blue vote in one of the reddest of red constituencies, but every vote is going to count more than most elections tomorrow, even if it doesn't translate into seats.
Hope that's a small crumb of comfort. It is to me. Vote for what you believe in with pride.
You have my sympathy. In the days when I lived in Oxford, voting anything other than red or yellow was always a lost cause. A few miles further north, or west, though, that's traditionally been a safe blue area.
Our long-standing Conservative MP has just retired, so I don't know how much of his support will transfer to his replacement. I think she will do all right, though: against HS2, think before you frack, save the local hospital, and hurrah for the rural life, which will all go down well here.
Well I know which constituency yours is then - and if that vote goes any way other than blue I'll streak naked down Sheep St. Majority at the moment is what? 18,000 ish? She'll get about 12,000 maj I think.
Anyway, I was the first one in the polling station at 0700 this morning, deed is done. Lovely day, birds singing, etc...
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see how Cameron can de-legitimize the process. If he has a majority in the Commons, he is PM, if not, not. Is he going to be the first losing PM to stay in power? The reputation of the Tory party would never recover, even if the right-wing press froth at the mouth at the prospect of Miliband. Of course, the Tories know full well that parliament recognizes MPs as the representatives of constituencies, and not political parties, but maybe they want to fool people.
That rather sweet thorn in the flesh of British politics, Owen Jones, outlines one possible scenario:
link. As I read it, it basically involves creating a media and stock market climate of such fear and venom - much of it directed at the SNP - that Cameron would be able to limp through a Queen's Speech on 27 May. Sure, Jones has his own agenda, but I wouldn't be surprised at anything Cameron tries. Remember, he's the man who only the other day said this election was "career defining" before correcting himself to "country defining".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see how Cameron can de-legitimize the process. If he has a majority in the Commons, he is PM, if not, not. Is he going to be the first losing PM to stay in power? The reputation of the Tory party would never recover, even if the right-wing press froth at the mouth at the prospect of Miliband. Of course, the Tories know full well that parliament recognizes MPs as the representatives of constituencies, and not political parties, but maybe they want to fool people.
That rather sweet thorn in the flesh of British politics, Owen Jones, outlines one possible scenario:
link. As I read it, it basically involves creating a media and stock market climate of such fear and venom - much of it directed at the SNP - that Cameron would be able to limp through a Queen's Speech on 27 May. Sure, Jones has his own agenda, but I wouldn't be surprised at anything Cameron tries. Remember, he's the man who only the other day said this election was "career defining" before correcting himself to "country defining".
I wonder if there are sane voices in the Tory party advising caution, on the grounds that it looks tacky, and pre-empts the will of Parliament. I suppose it's possible that Miliband will flinch at the prospect of opposing Murdoch.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
You know you could have finished this sentence after quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if there are sane voices in the Tory party
don't you?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Anyway, I was the first one in the polling station at 0700 this morning, deed is done. Lovely day, birds singing, etc...
If only you'd had a real Conservative - or Tory, either would do- party to vote for, eh?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There is an interesting counterfactual going around - Labour get slightly more seats, but the Libdems do unexpectedly well, and Cameron is able to form a coalition. However, the Sun and the Times advise that it wouldn't be fair, if the Tories are the second largest party.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is an interesting counterfactual going around - Labour get slightly more seats, but the Libdems do unexpectedly well, and Cameron is able to form a coalition. However, the Sun and the Times advise that it wouldn't be fair, if the Tories are the second largest party.
True, although many of those saying "it wouldn't be fair" are the same ones saying "convention means that all you have to do is command a majority in the house."
Another convention is that the sitting PM gets first go at forming a coalition in the event of no party having a majority, so arguably Cameron could do exactly what that counterfactual claims and have convention, precedent, and Gus O'Donnell on his side.
I still think it's moot though as I'm betting on the Tories having most seats and narrowly most votes.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Anyway, I was the first one in the polling station at 0700 this morning, deed is done. Lovely day, birds singing, etc...
If only you'd had a real Conservative - or Tory, either would do- party to vote for, eh?
well yes, although ideally I'd want a Joe Chamberlain-style civic radical party. Or Randolph Churchill's Tory Democracy (but for it to add up to something more than opportunism).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The head count of voting figures doesn't have any bearing on a party's ability to form a majority in the Commons. Indeed, it's profoundly inconsistent with and not in the interests of politicians who support FPTP to maintain otherwise.
Where though it does cause a legitimacy problem is outside Parliament, over the following 5 years. As I've repeated many times on these threads, it's the 2005 election that's the outrageous one, not the 2010 one. If you recall, it gave Labour an overall majority of 62 on a vote of only 35%. This creates in the government an illusion of an authority which they don't really have on the streets. People forget the figure but too many of them remember that they voted for somebody else. Government depends on the consent of the governed. The public don't actually rebel. But too large a proportion of the country don't in their hearts respect the administration or have sympathy with what it's trying to do. It's why the general political atmosphere during that administration was so much more scratchy and acrimonious than it has been during the 2010 one. During that parliament, 58% people had voted for part of it.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
At the polling station at 07:03. There was a queue heading out of the door. In a safe seat, so opted for a decent person who might be at risk of losing their deposit.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Oh, you surprise me, Betjemaniac- I'd had you down as a Roger Scruton-type Conservative, not a follower of Radical Joe- a gas-and-water municipal socialist, indeed! Still, I'd agree that you could do a lot, lot worse: until he started making an ass of himself over Ireland and the Colonies he was wonderful.
[ 07. May 2015, 08:37: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Another convention is that the sitting PM gets first go at forming a coalition in the event of no party having a majority, so arguably Cameron could do exactly what that counterfactual claims and have convention, precedent, and Gus O'Donnell on his side.
That would be entirely constitutional and indeed AIUI in accordance with c19 precedents: Mr Cameron has no majority, 'meets the House' to present a Queen's Speech, loses the vote on it, and advises the Queen to ask Mr Miliband whether he can form a government.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, you surprise me, Betjemaniac- I'd had you down as a Roger Scruton-type Conservative, not a follower of Radical Joe- a gas-and-water municipal socialist, indeed! Still, I'd agree that you could do a lot, lot worse: until he started making an ass of himself over Ireland and the Colonies he was wonderful.
Do you know, I think I'm actually a blend of the two - and the positions are complimentary in my eyes anyway. Baldwin's my all-time hero.
[ 07. May 2015, 08:46: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I'm off to vote now.
I think I'll vote SNP.
Oh, no .... wait - I don't live in Scotland!
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
I voted earlier, just before the school mum rush. This is my normal time for voting but it seemed much busier than usual, with us being sorted into queues; not something I had experienced before. Assuming the queues were in street order, the turn out from the better off end of the village was very high indeed, from my council estate almost non-existent. But I expect that will reverse later in the day due to demographics and work patterns. But it did look like a good turn out. Labour leafleting is very heavy here, I got 4 leaflets from them yesterday, 2 of them by post, so I wonder if there might be some con to lib tactical voting going on to keep the lib dem incumbent (despite him being more on the left of his party).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The head count of voting figures doesn't have any bearing on a party's ability to form a majority in the Commons. Indeed, it's profoundly inconsistent with and not in the interests of politicians who support FPTP to maintain otherwise.
Where though it does cause a legitimacy problem is outside Parliament, over the following 5 years. As I've repeated many times on these threads, it's the 2005 election that's the outrageous one, not the 2010 one. If you recall, it gave Labour an overall majority of 62 on a vote of only 35%. This creates in the government an illusion of an authority which they don't really have on the streets. People forget the figure but too many of them remember that they voted for somebody else. Government depends on the consent of the governed. The public don't actually rebel. But too large a proportion of the country don't in their hearts respect the administration or have sympathy with what it's trying to do. It's why the general political atmosphere during that administration was so much more scratchy and acrimonious than it has been during the 2010 one. During that parliament, 58% people had voted for part of it.
Yes, I guess Miliband will be weighing this up, assuming he could get a Commons majority. Would it be seen as unfair, provoking a backlash in later elections? Would support from SNP taint him? On the other hand, if he props up a Cameron govt, there will be accusations of cowardice in the labour movement, and probably beyond.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suppose under PR a Tory + UKIP coalition would be on the cards. Gulp.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose under PR a Tory + UKIP coalition would be on the cards. Gulp.
Not necessarily, or even at all. People's voting intentions are skewed by FPTP, and all sorts of mathematics are involved, but...
In a STV single-member constituency scenario, a UKIP voter is likely to put UKIP 1, Con 2. A Con voter is not necessarily going to put UKIP 2, but may put LD 2. A Green voter will go Green 1, Lab 2 or LD 2, LD 3 or Lab 3. A Lab voter will go Lab 1, LD or Green 2+3. And LD voter will go LD 1, and then either Lab or Green (or possibly Con) 2+3(+4). England only, PC and SNP and the Ulster parties apply in their bailiwicks.
So for a Con/UKIP vote to count they have to get over 50% from pretty much those two sources. A left-leaning vote will be redistributed to the largest leftist candidate. I haven't done any calculations, but how many constituencies have a rightist vote of >50%?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Some talk of a very late Labour swing, so YouGov has Cameron only 4 seats ahead. I do wonder if Cameron's reference to Labour illegitimacy might rile some people - that's not his decision.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I am no UKIP supporter. But it seems to me that similar numbers of people voting for UKIP, the LibDems and SNP could produce very different results, simply because of the concentration or dispersal of voters around the constituencies.
For instance (and I don't know if the figures will be at all similar) one could end up with (say) 2 x UKIP, 25 x LibDem and 45 x SNP on similar voter numbers. The Scots would be happy - but the rest of Britain might not be.
We need proper PR!
[ 07. May 2015, 09:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I am no UKIP supporter. But it seems to me that similar numbers of people voting for UKIP, the LibDems and SNP could produce very different results, simply because of the concentration or dispersal of voters around the constituencies.
For instance (and I don't know if the figures will be at all similar) one could end up with (say) 2 x UKIP, 25 x LibDem and 45 x SNP on similar voter numbers. The Scots would be happy - but the rest of Britain might not be.
We need proper PR!
But that's still true to some extent in any system unless you treat the country as a single electorate.
The fact is that the SNP only runs candidates in less than 10% of seats, so if you take the total number of SNP votes and compare them the number of votes of other parties that ran in every seat, you're actually making a rather misleading statement about the SNP support in the seats the SNP ran in. It's not really legitimate to combine that with 600 other seats where their level of support was automatically zero.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
We might get proper PR now. If neither of the two large parties wins outright (as seems certain) then they might all start wondering how they'd do under the various alternatives.
I think it would take a long time before either Lab/Con were not the big two. Doubtless they'll have wonks working live all through the night to keep track of the stats, and will certainly be using the "got most votes" arguments in the coming days.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
We may need PR (STV in five member constituencies, please) but we aren't going to get it.
I've heard someone who wants FPTP only also say that both the current "major" parties are dying. Who knows what might happen if three or four "minor" parties go on getting chunks of the vote and, like the SNP, hit the point where they collect MPs.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, you surprise me, Betjemaniac- I'd had you down as a Roger Scruton-type Conservative, not a follower of Radical Joe- a gas-and-water municipal socialist, indeed! Still, I'd agree that you could do a lot, lot worse: until he started making an ass of himself over Ireland and the Colonies he was wonderful.
Do you know, I think I'm actually a blend of the two - and the positions are complimentary in my eyes anyway. Baldwin's my all-time hero.
I can understand that- he deserves to be much better remembered. Decent inclusive Conservatism with quite an inclination towards fairly progessive social policy. The guts to take on the press lords, and an instinct for conciliation.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
YouGov finally predicting a 276/276 dead heat, which presumably would help Labour. Early doors though.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Yes - given that Sturgeon has said that the SNP's first aim is just to get rid of the tories and end austerity, Ed can just say that he can form a government and the SNP will vote with him in the Queens speech, which will be enough to start with.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Although, surely, weighing heavily on Cameron's side, in relation to legitimacy, and in fact, phenomenological coherence, are bacon sarnies?
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although, surely, weighing heavily on Cameron's side, in relation to legitimacy, and in fact, phenomenological coherence, are bacon sarnies?
And the fact that Milliband stumbled off the stage at that BBC debate last week. You don't want someone as PM who can't appear calm under pressure. Kinnock fell over on the beach that time in Brighton, and he never won...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some talk of a very late Labour swing, so YouGov has Cameron only 4 seats ahead. I do wonder if Cameron's reference to Labour illegitimacy might rile some people - that's not his decision.
It's a good argument from us the elector's viewpoint, but it's it rather a bad argument for a party leader who claims he ought to be in power on similar figures. Can't the wonks see that if they say that a Labour administration is illegitimate, a Conservative one on the same figures is equally so? What sort of an authority does anyone have who only got there on hanging chads?
I can see that where two parties each poll 49.5%, hanging chads or their equivalent might sort of do as an alternative to drawing lots. But that doesn't carry quite the same conviction where two parties have each got only about ⅓ of the vote.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is an interesting counterfactual going around - Labour get slightly more seats, but the Libdems do unexpectedly well, and Cameron is able to form a coalition. However, the Sun and the Times advise that it wouldn't be fair, if the Tories are the second largest party.
It seems unlikely that Labour could win more seats than the Conservatives, and yet (Con + LD) would command a majority. That would require Labour to do much, much better than expected in Scotland.
If the Conservatives get somewhere in the high 280s or 290 seats, Cameron probably has a reasonable shot at a minority government. Labour only needs to score in the 260s to put Miliband in the same position - he can say "no deals" all he likes, but the SNP aren't going to vote in a Tory government.
I think all the uncertainty is in the 3- and 4-way English marginals: whether a vote split between Con and UKIP lets the Lab candidate win, or whether a Green/Lab split lets the LD squeak through.
My guess is that Cameron gets the most seats, but that there aren't enough votes to support him in government, so we end up with a minority Miliband government which relies on votes from the nationalists and some Lib Dems to survive. There's probably about equal odds of that ending up being reasonably stable, or ending up as a complete disaster.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is an interesting counterfactual going around - Labour get slightly more seats, but the Libdems do unexpectedly well, and Cameron is able to form a coalition. However, the Sun and the Times advise that it wouldn't be fair, if the Tories are the second largest party.
It seems unlikely that Labour could win more seats than the Conservatives, and yet (Con + LD) would command a majority. That would require Labour to do much, much better than expected in Scotland.
If the Conservatives get somewhere in the high 280s or 290 seats, Cameron probably has a reasonable shot at a minority government. Labour only needs to score in the 260s to put Miliband in the same position - he can say "no deals" all he likes, but the SNP aren't going to vote in a Tory government.
I think all the uncertainty is in the 3- and 4-way English marginals: whether a vote split between Con and UKIP lets the Lab candidate win, or whether a Green/Lab split lets the LD squeak through.
My guess is that Cameron gets the most seats, but that there aren't enough votes to support him in government, so we end up with a minority Miliband government which relies on votes from the nationalists and some Lib Dems to survive. There's probably about equal odds of that ending up being reasonably stable, or ending up as a complete disaster.
and if the latter, a Boris 2020 landslide - if not earlier if the parliament can actually be brought down in the meantime.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
While we have to wait and speculate about how today's vote will turn out, over in the Circus the Ship of Fools poll has ended (because I buggered up its closing time - I meant to get it to end at 22:00 tonight, oops). Since I imagine many Purg denizens rarely peer through the flaps of the Circus tent, I've written up the results .
It shows that we seem to be more left-leaning than the country at large - in the past many have voted LibDem, but this time the most Ship of Fools votes are going to the Greens, with them getting one more vote than Labour, and the Tories in third, one point above LibDem.
Quite a few Shippies have changed their vote - although half are sticking with their usual, just over thirty percent were planning to vote for a different Party, and 17% hadn't decided.
(frighteningly, there was someone who said they were planning to vote UKIP)
What valuable insights can we learn about ourselves from there?
I imagine the national breakdown of votes won't be quite like this - perhaps the "Christian Unrest" (ITTWACW ) makes us more concerned with social justice, addressing the gap between rich and poor and so on, or maybe the general tendency of people here to think things through and be quite well-informed means we're less likely to vote UKIP (I do wonder who that one person was!) or to be on the right-wing Tory end of the spectrum .
[ 07. May 2015, 12:08: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I should point out that if I had a vote in a putative Tory leadership ballot, it wouldn't be for Boris.
Interesting question though, while we're on hypotheticals - if Ed were to fall on his sword in the next couple of days, having not done enough, who would the assembled company want to be the next Labour leader?
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
For anyone else who is planning to watch the results, the Huffington Post have published the estimated result announcement times for each constituency. We'll see how accurate (or otherwise) it ends up being.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I'm undecided about whether to watch the results on the BBC for serious coverage, or on the Channel 4 more entertaining-sounding one. Slightly leaning towards Channel 4, as it'll be the same results, and the accompanying interviews and analysis on the BBC will rapidy become samey, I guess.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
We stopped paying for our TV licence last year, and not being able to watch TV tonight will be the first time I've regretted that decision. I'll be flipping around various websites. I'm planning to get four hours sleep 10pm to 2am, then go online as the results start coming in.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
First things first. I need to watch the Good Wife first, to get my weekly fix of the divine Julianna M. Then the entertainment can begin - any chance of a Portillo moment? Clegg moment?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
First things first. I need to watch the Good Wife first, to get my weekly fix of the divine Julianna M. Then the entertainment can begin - any chance of a Portillo moment? Clegg moment?
I think Clegg's going to be safe. In terms of really high profile, I'm holding out for Balls. It's only 1200 odd to turf him out so with a bit of tactical voting....
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I've decided to go ashore for a week or two, but before I do, here's a question.
Quite a lot of shipmates on this thread and other threads have expressed fairly definite views on which party and which leaders they love and hate. Has any shipmate been persuaded by those sort of statements to vote differently from the way they probably thought they would about three months ago? And has any shipmate been persuaded to vote differently because of any of the discussions about politics on these threads? Or for that matter, has anyone been persuaded by any Party Political Broadcast, leaflet shoved through their door, or any interview or debate on radio or television to vote differently, to change their mind?
The wonks and party people are all bemoaning the fact that the figures haven't move much. Might this not be a good thing? And might it not mean that a lot of the canvassing etc is either a complete waste of time or only works on those who are already their supporters?
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
First things first. I need to watch the Good Wife first, to get my weekly fix of the divine Julianna M. Then the entertainment can begin - any chance of a Portillo moment? Clegg moment?
I'm hoping for a Farage moment, in which he doesn't get in. Must check that site to see when South Thanet declares....
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We stopped paying for our TV licence last year, and not being able to watch TV tonight will be the first time I've regretted that decision. I'll be flipping around various websites. I'm planning to get four hours sleep 10pm to 2am, then go online as the results start coming in.
I haven't had a TV for 15 years and elections are the only time when I wish we had a license.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
For the benefit of those of you from outside the UK who are interested in trying to understand the British system, and this election in particular, here is a fun but informative little video (also good for Brits too I think)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The narrative that it's only the top 1% who are doing well while everyone else is getting poorer and poorer just doesn't ring true.
Except that government statistics inconveniently disagree with you.
Take-away headlines are: - Since the start of the economic downturn, median household income for the overall population has fallen by 3.8%, after adjusting for inflation
- However, when looking separately at non-retired and retired households, the median income for non-retired households fell by 6.4% between 2007/08 and 2011/12
- The average amount paid in indirect taxes by the middle fifth of non-retired households also fell between 2007/08 and 2011/12, from £6,400 to £6,000, partly reflecting falling average expenditure. However, as a proportion of gross income, indirect taxes rose from 15.6% to 16.2% over this period, due to gross income falling at a faster rate
So, no. Even you, Marvin, though you're convinced otherwise.
I bow to your superior knowledge of my personal finances.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
May I ask how old you are, Marvin?
36.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I worked out my "hard working household" (i.e. me) was about £3500 p.a. worse off in real terms in 2014-15 than in 2009-10. This was largely due to public sector wage freeze and increased pension contributions. But I was lucky - I could still live on that. Many weren't so lucky, and tomorrow I'll be voting with them in mind.
My gross income has gone up by about £10k over the last five years, and with the increases to the personal allowance I'm keeping proportionally more of it in my accounts. In the same period my gas, electricity and food bills have virtually halved. I figure somebody in power must be doing something right.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I went a short time after I finished at the outdoor gym (provided by local blue council, and chosen to suit 6ft people with muscular upper bodies), which I finished at about 8 am. There was no-one there but me, though I saw a dad coming away with his young son (I know he'd been there, because he was holding his card), and explaining the process to the son.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
I've voted. In Twickenham, it's either to keep Vince Cable in the House of Commons, or replace him with a new Conservative MP. Voting LibDem in such circumstances is a no-brainer, IMHO. If we end up with a Conservative-led government I'd like it to be at least somewaht accountable to a coalition partner.
What I'm really hoping, though, is that the British people give the big F-off to UKIP. I'd like this to be the last General Election in which they are treated even remotely seriously. I fear that is a vain hope, but I'd welcome a government of pretty much any other combination of parties, if xenophobia could be taken off the political agenda for the foreseeable future.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My gross income has gone up by about £10k over the last five years, and with the increases to the personal allowance I'm keeping proportionally more of it in my accounts. In the same period my gas, electricity and food bills have virtually halved. I figure somebody in power must be doing something right.
It's likelier that you have done something right, and well done for that. Shopping around for gas & electricity and a change of diet help. As for a salary increase of £10K that must be down to you, especially in a period of pay restraint.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The narrative that it's only the top 1% who are doing well while everyone else is getting poorer and poorer just doesn't ring true.
Except that government statistics inconveniently disagree with you.
Take-away headlines are: - Since the start of the economic downturn, median household income for the overall population has fallen by 3.8%, after adjusting for inflation
- However, when looking separately at non-retired and retired households, the median income for non-retired households fell by 6.4% between 2007/08 and 2011/12
- The average amount paid in indirect taxes by the middle fifth of non-retired households also fell between 2007/08 and 2011/12, from £6,400 to £6,000, partly reflecting falling average expenditure. However, as a proportion of gross income, indirect taxes rose from 15.6% to 16.2% over this period, due to gross income falling at a faster rate
So, no. Even you, Marvin, though you're convinced otherwise.
I bow to your superior knowledge of my personal finances.
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
May I ask how old you are, Marvin?
36.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I worked out my "hard working household" (i.e. me) was about £3500 p.a. worse off in real terms in 2014-15 than in 2009-10. This was largely due to public sector wage freeze and increased pension contributions. But I was lucky - I could still live on that. Many weren't so lucky, and tomorrow I'll be voting with them in mind.
My gross income has gone up by about £10k over the last five years, and with the increases to the personal allowance I'm keeping proportionally more of it in my accounts. In the same period my gas, electricity and food bills have virtually halved. I figure somebody in power must be doing something right.
One of the biggest outreach ministries at our church is the food bank. Before this government got in and trashed social security, we didn't need one. I'm not entirely convinced about that ...
It's moments like this I really miss Ken.
I haven't voted yet. It's a safe Tory seat, but I'll either go Red or Green. Sadly, I can't bring myself to vote Lib-Dem anymore. Like many others, I hope UKIP does really badly and Farage loses in Thanet so has to make good on his promise to resign as party leader. (Part of me hopes that Al Murry would actually get elected, but that is nighly unlikely ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
).
Tubbs
[ 07. May 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I've voted. In Twickenham, it's either to keep Vince Cable in the House of Commons, or replace him with a new Conservative MP. Voting LibDem in such circumstances is a no-brainer, IMHO. If we end up with a Conservative-led government I'd like it to be at least somewaht accountable to a coalition partner.
What I'm really hoping, though, is that the British people give the big F-off to UKIP. I'd like this to be the last General Election in which they are treated even remotely seriously. I fear that is a vain hope, but I'd welcome a government of pretty much any other combination of parties, if xenophobia could be taken off the political agenda for the foreseeable future.
Xenophobia will disappear when the economy gets better. The "problem" of supporting all these foreigners won't matter as much when there's lots of money around to do it, and more people want a cheap Polish plumber to fit their new bathroom.
Islamaphobia however, is a different issue.
I notice (with distaste) that after people jumped on Farage for going on about the cost of HIV treatment for foreigners, he was banging on the other day about how extremists could get in via the Med people smuggling route and there was nothing we could do as long as we were in the EU. Apart from that being bollocks,it's appealing to a different phobia.
(appealing, not appearing)
[ 07. May 2015, 13:40: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
May I ask how old you are, Marvin?
36.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I worked out my "hard working household" (i.e. me) was about £3500 p.a. worse off in real terms in 2014-15 than in 2009-10. This was largely due to public sector wage freeze and increased pension contributions. But I was lucky - I could still live on that. Many weren't so lucky, and tomorrow I'll be voting with them in mind.
My gross income has gone up by about £10k over the last five years, and with the increases to the personal allowance I'm keeping proportionally more of it in my accounts. In the same period my gas, electricity and food bills have virtually halved. I figure somebody in power must be doing something right.
Not everyone has fared quite so well. I (at 31) thought I'd come off reasonably well. I was on the same pay from 1 Jan 2010 - 31 Dec 2013, only getting pay rises in the last two years. I worked out the compound annual growth rate was 0.1%. In the same period, my rent has gone up 30% (CAGR 5.4%) and energy bills have nearly doubled.
Yet I would never say I have it tough. With the exception of the Help To Inflate scheme, a self-serving vote would be for the Conservatives. But having seen their true economic legacy, the legacy of the hundreds of thousands who cannot afford to feed themselves, of the disabled and their carers taking the brunt of the cuts, then I could not in good conscience have voted for them.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
As a Canadian, can I ask what time the polls close? I am interested in following the poll numbers as they roll in.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
As a Canadian, can I ask what time the polls close? I am interested in following the poll numbers as they roll in.
10pm UK time....
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Polls close at 10pm (British Summer Time). There maybe one or two results announced by midnight, I expect most will be in between 2 and 5am.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My gross income has gone up by about £10k over the last five years, and with the increases to the personal allowance I'm keeping proportionally more of it in my accounts. In the same period my gas, electricity and food bills have virtually halved. I figure somebody in power must be doing something right.
It's likelier that you have done something right, and well done for that. Shopping around for gas & electricity and a change of diet help. As for a salary increase of £10K that must be down to you, especially in a period of pay restraint.
Exactly. Am I right in thinking you work in a University, Marvin? If so, you almost certainly won't have had much of a pay rise in any single post, as opposed to raising your pay by moving between jobs- unless you're a Vice-Chancellor, of course, but I suspect you aren't one.
And of course there is the argument, supported by quite a lot of academics and others from lefty pinko organisations like the Bank of England and the IMF, that Osbastard's austerity actually delayed economic recovery.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
British standard video concerning immigration...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Am I right in thinking you work in a University, Marvin?
Yep.
quote:
If so, you almost certainly won't have had much of a pay rise in any single post, as opposed to raising your pay by moving between jobs- unless you're a Vice-Chancellor, of course, but I suspect you aren't one.
There was one promotion, the rest was increments within my current role.
quote:
And of course there is the argument, supported by quite a lot of academics and others from lefty pinko organisations like the Bank of England and the IMF, that Osbastard's austerity actually delayed economic recovery.
It's possible that might be right. But there's also an argument that playing it safe and accepting a slower recovery in return for not going completely off the side of the cliff (see Greece) is a good thing.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Problem is quite a few people are already falling off the cliff: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/killed-benefits-cuts-starving-soldier-3923771
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I'm really hoping, though, is that the British people give the big F-off to UKIP. I'd like this to be the last General Election in which they are treated even remotely seriously. I fear that is a vain hope, but I'd welcome a government of pretty much any other combination of parties, if xenophobia could be taken off the political agenda for the foreseeable future.
If Farage fails to take Thanet, and resigns as he said he would, I expect UKIP to fizzle out. Who else in UKIP has the charisma or public profile to replicate his success?
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I'm really hoping, though, is that the British people give the big F-off to UKIP. I'd like this to be the last General Election in which they are treated even remotely seriously. I fear that is a vain hope, but I'd welcome a government of pretty much any other combination of parties, if xenophobia could be taken off the political agenda for the foreseeable future.
If Farage fails to take Thanet, and resigns as he said he would, I expect UKIP to fizzle out. Who else in UKIP has the charisma or public profile to replicate his success?
I don't think Farage has quit as an MEP yet has he - presumably as a nice financial insurance, only needing to quit that job if he got the UK one?
UKIP have quite a few MEPs, and I could see them continuing to have those in the future, with people happily still voting for them in the belief that it's OK to do that as a protest, in the same way that council elections mid term for a government often go in the opposite direction to the governing party.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I'm really hoping, though, is that the British people give the big F-off to UKIP. I'd like this to be the last General Election in which they are treated even remotely seriously. I fear that is a vain hope, but I'd welcome a government of pretty much any other combination of parties, if xenophobia could be taken off the political agenda for the foreseeable future.
Amen
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The narrative that it's only the top 1% who are doing well while everyone else is getting poorer and poorer just doesn't ring true.
Except that government statistics inconveniently disagree with you.
Take-away headlines are: - Since the start of the economic downturn, median household income for the overall population has fallen by 3.8%, after adjusting for inflation
- However, when looking separately at non-retired and retired households, the median income for non-retired households fell by 6.4% between 2007/08 and 2011/12
- The average amount paid in indirect taxes by the middle fifth of non-retired households also fell between 2007/08 and 2011/12, from £6,400 to £6,000, partly reflecting falling average expenditure. However, as a proportion of gross income, indirect taxes rose from 15.6% to 16.2% over this period, due to gross income falling at a faster rate
So, no. Even you, Marvin, though you're convinced otherwise.
I bow to your superior knowledge of my personal finances.
You're paying more indirect tax than you're saving on income tax, is for certain.
But I note with some irony that you don't, you can't contradict hard statistics with your anecdata, and any attempt to dress up the situation as "it's not as bad as everyone says" is either woefully ignorant or actively mendacious.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Am I right in thinking you work in a University, Marvin?
Yep.
quote:
If so, you almost certainly won't have had much of a pay rise in any single post, as opposed to raising your pay by moving between jobs- unless you're a Vice-Chancellor, of course, but I suspect you aren't one.
There was one promotion, the rest was increments within my current role.
quote:
And of course there is the argument, supported by quite a lot of academics and others from lefty pinko organisations like the Bank of England and the IMF, that Osbastard's austerity actually delayed economic recovery.
It's possible that might be right. But there's also an argument that playing it safe and accepting a slower recovery in return for not going completely off the side of the cliff (see Greece) is a good thing.
Nobody, but nobody, who knows anything about the subject, thinks that the UK economy had much in common with the Greek economy at all. We had and have control over interest rates, and our debt was much more long-term. The Greek comparison was and is mischievous and purely a scare tactic.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
For the benefit of those of you from outside the UK who are interested in trying to understand the British system, and this election in particular, here is a fun but informative little video (also good for Brits too I think)
Hadn't seen that - loved it !
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Some journos are calculating a 3% swing to Labour, not enough for a majority, but maybe enough to frustrate Cameron. But of course, it will vary a lot, maybe higher in the Great Wen.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're paying more indirect tax than you're saving on income tax, is for certain.
Perhaps. That doesn't change any of what I've said though.
quote:
But I note with some irony that you don't, you can't contradict hard statistics with your anecdata, and any attempt to dress up the situation as "it's not as bad as everyone says" is either woefully ignorant or actively mendacious.
When what everyone says is that unless you're in the 1% you're inevitably going to get poorer under the Tories, it only takes one example of someone who's not in the 1% getting richer to demonstrate that it's not as bad as they're making out.
National-level statistics can only take you so far. If 30% of people are richer and 70% are poorer then the stats will tell you that there's an overall downwards trend, but that doesn't mean the 30% are actually getting poorer.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's possible that might be right. But there's also an argument that playing it safe and accepting a slower recovery in return for not going completely off the side of the cliff (see Greece) is a good thing.
Nobody, but nobody, who knows anything about the subject, thinks that the UK economy had much in common with the Greek economy at all. We had and have control over interest rates, and our debt was much more long-term. The Greek comparison was and is mischievous and purely a scare tactic.
Indeed.
Not to mention that strictly speaking, never mind a slower recovery we haven't had any kind of recovery.
A recovery is above trend growth that brings growth rates back up to the trend making up for the ground lost in the recession. We have just crawled back to trend level. Just. And GDP per head remains below pre-crisis levels.
But of course it's the BEST recovery ever, Osborne keeps telling us so...
This Chart is particularly revealing (Can you spot when George took over?)
And this is one of my favourites: 2010 predictions of Osborne's Economic brilliance(tm) vs what actually happened: Ooops!
Long Term Economic Plan
UK Economic performance vs France
AFZ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When what everyone says is that unless you're in the 1% you're inevitably going to get poorer under the Tories, it only takes one example of someone who's not in the 1% getting richer to demonstrate that it's not as bad as they're making out.
National-level statistics can only take you so far. If 30% of people are richer and 70% are poorer then the stats will tell you that there's an overall downwards trend, but that doesn't mean the 30% are actually getting poorer.
You're the one who insists that whenever anyone says "people are getting poorer", it means 99% of us are. I never argued that.
The median income is going down. Most people are poorer. The very rich are very much richer. Congratulations, but it's nothing that the government's done that's led to you bucking the trend. You're richer despite them. My family are poorer because of them, as are an awful lot of others.
You choose not to see that as a problem, so whatever.
[ 07. May 2015, 17:10: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
It's also worth pointing out that in 2010 raising the personal allowance was a Liberal Democrat policy which Mr Cameron claimed would be unaffordable. That he is now claiming the credit for it is another entry in the Tory chutzpah register.
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The median income is going down.
Is that really so? It certainly was over the period of the statistics you linked to, 2007-2012, but more current figures indicate that median income has risen since then. That's about my experience: my income fell in 2010/11, then remained frozen, but has been picking up since 2013.
Of course I'm relatively well paid (not in the top 1% or anything but comfortably above average). However, I'm also a governor at a school in one of Birmingham's most deprived wards and I see some signs of the same sort of thing there. Two years ago 78% of our children qualified for free school meals, the most recent figure is 46%. The eligibility criteria for FSM have remained unchanged, and the school's procedures for checking that all parents who are eligible register their entitlement have, if anything, become even more thorough. There have been no changes to the demographics of the school's catchment area which is overwhelmingly social housing with a high proportion of immigrant and refugee families.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Are folk factoring inflation when looking at income growth ?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The median income is going down.
Is that really so? It certainly was over the period of the statistics you linked to, 2007-2012, but more current figures indicate that median income has risen since then.
That's fine. I'm happy to accept good statistics. Median income was going down, and is now back to where it was.
The situation, though, is patchy. My kid's school is seeing a huge rise in FSM (we're up to nearly 50%). Most of our household income comes from Mrs Tor's civil service wage. Higher pension payments, zero increases (she's at the top of her scale), zero annual increases, and the £5k pay cut she needed to take in order to keep the job she has, plus higher energy bills, higher VAT, higher travel costs... perhaps that unduly colours my view, but I know a lot of folk far worse off than we are. If it wasn't for our incredibly low mortgage, we'd be far worse off too.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Can I also add that I wouldn't *mind* being slightly poorer if it meant that the number of people who have to use food banks went down?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Ditto. It's an irony that we're poorer to no discernible effect, and the money seems to have gone to those who already had most of it.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Indeed.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
(Should say that link is probably not work safe.)
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Did anyone else see the XKCD cartoon yesterday?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Did anyone else see the XKCD cartoon yesterday?
That's hilarious. I want that as T-shirt.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
We had town council, district council and constituency MP voting.
The town council has 6 seats, 7 candidates, 6 of whom were Tory. I voted for three candidates, the Labour candidate and two of the better Tory guys (comes of knowing most of them personally).
District council was a pretty crummy choice, again knowing most of the candidates from previous performance or personally. That one I voted politically and Green.
MP was interesting. Here is solidly true blue with the sitting MP polling 51% of the vote last time around. LibDem usually comes second. This time around the LibDem candidate is a very good local councillor at district and county level and the sitting MP is a crap constituency MP. We also got UKIP, Labour and Green candidates. I am hoping that the drift to UKIP in this area will let the LibDem guy through and oust the Tory MP. And if that happens, that will be Portillo moment.
So to my amusement I have voted Tory, Labour, Green and LibDem tonight. Mainly for candidates rather than on party political lines.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
"Hilarious" is pushing it.
Mildly amusing, I'll grant you.
Too much processing for a T-Shirt.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
BBC exit poll: Con 316, Lab 239, LD 10, SNP 58, UKIP 2, Green 2, PC 4, Others 19.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Which means Con + Lib Dem is a viable coalition again, albeit with a majority of only 2.
If the exit poll is accurate, of course. With such a small majority it only takes one seat to go the other way for all bets to be off!
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Hmm. This exit poll looks to be based on about 50 voters per constituency (22,000 total). How reliable is it likely to be?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
BBC exit poll: Con 316, Lab 239, LD 10, SNP 58, UKIP 2, Green 2, PC 4, Others 19.
If this is correct, I don't want to live in this country any more. I don't want to live in a country ruled by and for fucking stupid selfish bastards and their dupes.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Hmm. This exit poll looks to be based on about 50 voters per constituency (22,000 total). How reliable is it likely to be?
Last time it was pretty close.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
But this election is very different from the last one, with more parties in play (SNP and UKIP especially). So I am not convinced that the exit poll will be as accurate as last time.
Paddy Ashdown agrees with me! Er...
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
Dear God.... Not 58 seats for the SNP... PLEASE!!!!
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
If the exit poll is right the NHS is going to be destroyed by the time of the next election.
Opposition vote looks like it split.
[ 07. May 2015, 21:26: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Depressed already by the BBC's exit poll - how could the tories actually make gains? I hope it's wildly wrong.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Harriet Harman on the other hand is trying to argue that the exit polls would represent good news!
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I think I need a drink.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The Yougov exit poll is very different. Sorry, this is a tablet and I lack the will to link.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
I'm trying very hard to convince myself I don't need a drink
Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on
:
Watching channel 4s coverage is making this so much less depressing. Even though it is very depressing. Also, wine helps.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Oh my GHOD!!!
That exit poll could really, really hardly be worse.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Did anyone else see the XKCD cartoon yesterday?
Personally, I preferred the gag about cutting the US Secret Service some slack.
Because, let's face it, they are the only branch of US Law Enforcement who get in trouble if a black man gets shot.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Southern Comfort over in this neck of the woods. I booked tomorrow morning off work so I can stay up / sleep thru my hangover.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The Yougov exit poll is very different. Sorry, this is a tablet and I lack the will to link.
but I don't think it's based on a sample of 22K.
And on reflection, it's actually quite feasable. I have heard that the Lib Dems in the South West have been shedding working class votes to UKIP. That means lots of Tory gains there.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
Channel 4 is definitely a better bet than BBC Scotland. Which is just a bit Scotland-centric...
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
The exit polls have got to be wrong.
The exit polls have GOT to be wrong
THE EXIT POLLS.....
<recollects himself>
Apologies - are you detecting a note of desperation?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Channel 4 wins over BBC coverage by virtue of *not* having Michael Gove.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
You all trust exit polls over there?
I thought every body knew they were not always accurate.
[ 07. May 2015, 21:45: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
If the seat prediction is correct, the forthcoming result is likely be Tory led with coalition / supply arrangements with the Lib Dems, UKIP and the DUP.
...............................and a second independence referendum in short order.
AND a Brexit referendum.
Not to mention the reintroduction of workhouses.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I was going to wait until 2300 to switch to Channel 4 - Gogglebox is a bit annoying, so I thought I'd let the majority of that get out of the way.
BBC were talking up Sunderland trying to have their count in by 22:40 - but it seems that they've failed to beat their last year's record of 22:43, as we're still listening to a UKIP talking-head.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Depressed already by the BBC's exit poll - how could the tories actually make gains? I hope it's wildly wrong.
Only just realised that the exit poll represents gains.
Well, it could happen because of your voting system. In the UK, it doesn't matter where votes that were held by the previous winning party leak, it just matters that they leak.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You all trust exit polls over there?
I thought every knew they were not always accurate.
Unfortunately the last two have been dead on, following a change from the 2001 methodology.
Even in 2001, the median between the ITV and BBC polls was pretty much exactly the result.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Yogov have tories at 283 and labour on 263 - its on the BbC live website feed. Liberals on about 30.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
Oh, we know they're not necessarily accurate.
But they're the only thing we've got until the results start coming in, and frankly they're too depressing. (And as far as Scotland is concerned, all the polls leading up to the election have also predicted that the SNP will pretty take everything)
On a more cheerful note, I have given in and opened a bottle of red.
[ 07. May 2015, 21:52: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You all trust exit polls over there?
It's not so much trust you're seeing here as fear that they may be right.
AFZ
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Hrm. Over 20% for UKIP in Sunderland South. Hrmmmm.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Labour have held Sunderland South, no surprise there. Turnout 56% which is crap. UKIP gain is distressing.
[ 07. May 2015, 21:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
AFZ has it in one.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
The first real result is in, and it's a 7% swing from Labour to UKIP. not enough to win then the seat of course, but if that's repeated in closer seats it could open the door for the Tories to get in...
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Mitchell unleashed .....
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Or it could damage the Conservatives in the South. As Peter Snow used to say.... We Simply Don't Know!
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Turnout in Sunderland South is the same as 2010, so I reckon the following has happened:
Lib Dem votes > Labour (lots)
Conservative votes > UKIP
BNP votes > UKIP
Labour votes > UKIP
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
So, what could "Getting onto Labour's pink bus" be a euphemism for?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Mwahahaha
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
BBC exit poll: Con 316, Lab 239, LD 10, SNP 58, UKIP 2, Green 2, PC 4, Others 19.
If this is correct, I don't want to live in this country any more. I don't want to live in a country ruled by and for fucking stupid selfish bastards and their dupes.
I feel the same way.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It seems to me, from the little information that is available so far, is that a plausible scenario involves the Liberal Democrat vote collapsing but much of the practical benefit going to the Conservatives in the south and the SNP in the north, not Labour.
[ 07. May 2015, 22:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Tweet from a friend reckons that putting Paddy Ashdown between Alistair Campbell and Michael Gove is against his Human Rights as cruel and unusual ..
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Lots of politicians offering to eat items of clothing - at some point someone is going to make a meme ...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It seems to me, from the little information that is available so far, is that a plausible scenario involves the Liberal Democrat vote collapsing but much of the practical benefit going to the Conservatives in the south and the SNP in the north, not Labour.
That's a very plausible analysis.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It seems to me, from the little information that is available so far, is that a plausible scenario involves the Liberal Democrat vote collapsing but much of the practical benefit going to the Conservatives in the south
Correct. Especially in the south west and the rural south east, most seats are a square-off between the Tories and the Lib Dems, with Labour in a poor third. One of the reasons why the Tories didn't get a majority in 2010 (despite their increased vote) is because the Lib Dems' vote also increased.
quote:
and the SNP in the north, not Labour.
I think that's dwarfed by the switch from Labour to SNP, and also non-voters to SNP.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Everild:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
BBC exit poll: Con 316, Lab 239, LD 10, SNP 58, UKIP 2, Green 2, PC 4, Others 19.
If this is correct, I don't want to live in this country any more. I don't want to live in a country ruled by and for fucking stupid selfish bastards and their dupes.
I feel the same way.
Likewise.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
This is from the BBC live feed.
quote:
Moreover, a final poll of polls compiled by the Press Association puts the Tories on 276 seats, Labour on 271, Lib Dems on 28, SNP 48, UKIP three and Greens one.
There'll be a LOT of nail biting going on tonight.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Labour hold for Sunderland Central. UKiP on 19% again and 5% swing to labour from Tory.
[ 07. May 2015, 22:18: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Another lousy turnout. I had expected it to be higher given that this election was predicted to be so close and that UKIP were picking up so much support.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It'll be higher overall, but in the really safe seats I doubt it'll change much.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Apparently the turnout where Farage is running is high.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
One can only hope that's people turning out to vote someone else in.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Does this mean that UKIP is becoming the main opposition party in the North?
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I think that UKIP have taken votes off Labour. We're only 3 results in, but that's the only way to explain those results given that the Tory vote hasn't really changed.
If that is correct, UKIP won't have split the right-wing vote, merely increased it.
[ 07. May 2015, 22:36: Message edited by: Cod ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Does this mean that UKIP is becoming the main opposition party in the North?
Looks that way, yes.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Labour have held Washington & Sunderland West - UKIP second again.
I could weep.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I think that UKIP have taken votes off Labour.
But we've only had Labour safe seats declaring so far. I think the night as a whole may well show that UKIP have taken votes off the incumbent party, whichever that is.
It's also possible that Conservative voters have gone to UKIP but Lib Dem voters have gone to Conservative. Unlikely, but possible.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
It is vaguely interesting that Sammy Wilson says the DUP might be prepared to support Labour! They could end up in a coalition with the SDLP!
[ 07. May 2015, 22:43: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
UKIP in second is a hell of a lot better than UKIP in first. Small consolation as both are a lot worse than UKIP scraping a few votes and struggling to retain their deposit,
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Stupid question from the outside, though my daughter has voted in the UK election.
Can Labour make a coalition instead of the Tories? I suppose the general understanding is the same as here (we inherited the system from you: thanks!) that the party with the most seats gets first crack at forming a gov't. But if Labour would be able to get into bed with another party and have more seats, could it happen?
What's the problem with a coalition involving the SNP? Just that they wanted independence? Is that enough to say no to them? I should think that'd be every reason to say yes to them. The Canadian experience with the Bloc Québecois was that as independence faded, so did their fortunes.* There was never a coalition them though they were official opposition for a spell.
* and we all united more in hatred of Toronto
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
In theory yes, noprophet, but the incumbant gets first dibs at trying to form a government.
Though last time Gordon Brown stayed in post to let the tories and lib dems thrash out their deal, because they were clearly the largest block.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Enjoying the "virtual Downing Street" on the BBC.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It is vaguely interesting that Sammy Wilson says the DUP might be prepared to support Labour! They could end up in a coalition with the SDLP!
They'd hardly going to give away their bargaining position before any discussions start!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Enjoying the "virtual Downing Street" on the BBC.
It's rather good, isn't it!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
By convention, the sitting PM gets first crack at forming a government. So, even if the Tories get less seats than Labour (which the exit polls suggest is going to be unlikely) they'll get first chance at forming a coalition or going for a minority government. Although, if Lab and SNP, possibly with LibDems, come out in the morning and say "We're going to form a coalition and vote against any Queens Speech the Tories put forward" then there's no point Cameron trying that and Milliband will be chapping Her Majesties' door.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
I'm not getting a virtual downing st. BBC coverage up here is going on about whether the predicted results for the SNP means that they are therefore mandated to push for another independence referendum.
Not bloody independence again....
[ 07. May 2015, 22:54: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Course if the queen is bored and fancies a constitutional crisis, she could invite an independent peer to form a government of national unity, and then sit back and watch the chaos.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Can Labour make a coalition instead of the Tories?
To form a government, one only needs to show that one can command a majority of the individual MPs in the House of Commons. Arguably, even this isn't necessary, as long as it is clear that you won't be tipped out on your arse in a no confidence vote.
In practice, the PM remains PM until it is clear that he or she can't do either of these things and there is an alternative. So in that sense David Cameron does get first dibs. However, in practice this is meaningless, as all MPs are free to negotiate with each other at any time.
quote:
What's the problem with a coalition involving the SNP? Just that they wanted independence? Is that enough to say no to them?
Constitutionally, there is no problem. The SNP MPs are MPs, just like all the others.
As it happens, the SNP have stopped considerably short from offering a coalition deal so far, but the somewhat inconsistent statements being made by them indicates that their position may be evolving.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
posted by Doublethink:
Course if the queen is bored and fancies a constitutional crisis, she could invite an independent peer to form a government of national unity, and then sit back and watch the chaos.
Not that I want to see a Tory Government, but if the tories were to have the greatest number of seats, but Cameron lost his seat, who would we be stuck with?
[ 07. May 2015, 22:59: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Boris Johnson in about a nano second.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
If the Tories had an overall majority, the Queen would invite whoever the Tories chose as their (interim) leader to form a government.
If they didn't have an overall majority, then it would get messy. As DPM, Nick Clegg would remain in office until the Tories cobbled some kind of deal together, in which case the Queen would invite their leader to form a government.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I find the early reports of voter intimidation and voter fraud disturbing, even if they are only isolated incidents.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Apparently Danny Alexander "has lost" (according to a senior Lib Dem source). That's been predicted for weeks.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I think we could do a lot to improve election security. You can't collect a parcel from the post office without proof of ID, but you can likely waltz into a polling station, give a name and address and be allowed to vote without further ado...
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
Aye, but I'm struggling to remember who the Tory deputy Dawg is. But since it's somewhat irrelevant anyway it was a random thought.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Nate Silver's live predictions:
Lab 272, Con 272, SNP 50, LD 28, UKIP 4, PC 4, Greens 1, Other 1
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Come on, counters, get us some more seats to chew on.
How come the fastest seats are all safe Labour ones? - apparently Sunderland has been first to declare for the last five Elections, and it's a big thing for them.
The Kipper swing is scary, isn't it? And while I'd agree, I'd rather have them in second than winning seats, the more votes they have, the greater their mandate to be taken notice of.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
It does bring out a relevant point though, which is that the party system has no formal recognition in the UK parliamentary system. You just need a majority of MPs on your side. It doesn't matter what party they are aligned with or what part of the UK they are from.
What this means of course is that if you don't want the SNP in government, too bad.
It also means that if Scotland returns entirely SNP MPs, none of whom end up in government, too bad.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Come on, counters, get us some more seats to chew on.
How come the fastest seats are all safe Labour ones? - apparently Sunderland has been first to declare for the last five Elections, and it's a big thing for them.
It's more likely to be that way because in urban seats you don't have to bring the ballot papers so far, so you can start counting them sooner. Urban seats are more likely to be Labour seats.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You all trust exit polls over there?
It's not so much trust you're seeing here as fear that they may be right.
AFZ
Good, cause as Nate Silver said himself 3 years ago
(admittedly about the US)
quote:
Exit polls have been highly accurate in every recent election except 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Also there are generally less votes to count as the turnouts in those constituencies are low.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
The Kipper swing is scary, isn't it? And while I'd agree, I'd rather have them in second than winning seats, the more votes they have, the greater their mandate to be taken notice of.
They could become a genuine opposition party in some parts of the country. And if that happens you can bet they'll be back next time, with the bonus of actually being a credible alternative rather than a protest vote.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Come on, counters, get us some more seats to chew on.
How come the fastest seats are all safe Labour ones? - apparently Sunderland has been first to declare for the last five Elections, and it's a big thing for them.
2 reasons:
1. Fast seats are low-turn out seats - Labour voters don't turn out in safe seats so the safer seats almost always have low turn out.
2. Sunderland has a long tradition of fast counting. Sunderland happens to have 3 safe Labour seats.
AFZ
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
You all trust exit polls over there?
It's not so much trust you're seeing here as fear that they may be right.
AFZ
Good, cause as Nate Silver said himself 3 years ago
(admittedly about the US)
quote:
Exit polls have been highly accurate in every recent election except 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010.
Except, as others have said the exit polls in the UK have been very accurate the last couple of times.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
What is with Henning Wehn's face ?
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
5 party elections change those dynamics.
Remains to be seen, but also remember there is a lot of media money riding on creating a narrative before the results fully come in. And some of that media is looking for any reason to put the kibosh on anybody but the Tories getting in, even if the Tories don't win a majority of like minded MP's.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
The Kipper swing is scary, isn't it? And while I'd agree, I'd rather have them in second than winning seats, the more votes they have, the greater their mandate to be taken notice of.
They could become a genuine opposition party in some parts of the country. And if that happens you can bet they'll be back next time, with the bonus of actually being a credible alternative rather than a protest vote.
Alternatively, they gain a lot of council seats and show themselves to be incompetent. And, a couple of MPs who show themselves to be as sleazy as everyone else. Resulting in them being seen as less a vote for a different form of politics, but just for a less competent version of the main parties.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
Quote of the night from David Mitchell: "Most of our politicians are loathsome"
.
.
.
No, don't take it back!
[ 07. May 2015, 23:25: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
The Kipper swing is scary, isn't it? And while I'd agree, I'd rather have them in second than winning seats, the more votes they have, the greater their mandate to be taken notice of.
They could become a genuine opposition party in some parts of the country. And if that happens you can bet they'll be back next time, with the bonus of actually being a credible alternative rather than a protest vote.
Alternatively, they gain a lot of council seats and show themselves to be incompetent. And, a couple of MPs who show themselves to be as sleazy as everyone else. Resulting in them being seen as less a vote for a different form of politics, but just for a less competent version of the main parties.
That could also happen. The main reason this election is so exciting is the uncertainty around it all!
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Come on, counters, get us some more seats to chew on.
How come the fastest seats are all safe Labour ones? - apparently Sunderland has been first to declare for the last five Elections, and it's a big thing for them.
It's more likely to be that way because in urban seats you don't have to bring the ballot papers so far, so you can start counting them sooner. Urban seats are more likely to be Labour seats.
Yeah, I know, I'm just impatient ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I reckon there's scope for a working class right-wing alternative to the Tories in many parts of the country, and UKIP could be that party if they play their cards right. They also have the issue of Europe to draw on. There's much less scope for them to make complete idiots of themselves like the BNP did. While they clearly are scraping the barrel for candidates at present, that will be less of a problem if their membership continues to grow.
Another question is: can the Lib Dems recover? Their vote share is projected to be bad, but more seriously than that, if they are reduced to a rump of 10, they will have little exposure in the press. They were the only game in town if you didn't like Labour or the Conservatives. Not any longer.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
The Kipper swing is scary, isn't it? And while I'd agree, I'd rather have them in second than winning seats, the more votes they have, the greater their mandate to be taken notice of.
They could become a genuine opposition party in some parts of the country. And if that happens you can bet they'll be back next time, with the bonus of actually being a credible alternative rather than a protest vote.
Alternatively, they gain a lot of council seats and show themselves to be incompetent. And, a couple of MPs who show themselves to be as sleazy as everyone else. Resulting in them being seen as less a vote for a different form of politics, but just for a less competent version of the main parties.
That could also happen. The main reason this election is so exciting is the uncertainty around it all!
It is basically what happened to the BNP, (figures on the european vote suggest most of the BNP vote went straight to UKIP but that is unsurprising.)
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
Dear BBC Scotland,
I know I'm in Scotland, so it's not unreasonable for you to be concentrating your election coverage on Scotland. It's a national election however; it's happening outside Scotland too, and actually, what's happening in rUK is actually more germane to who forms the next Government, isn't it?
Disgruntled in the West of Scotland
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Swindon North in.
Tories, UKIP up. Labour down. Lib Dem collapsed.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
At least George Galloway might lose his seat.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Another question is: can the Lib Dems recover?
I think there are two alternatives.
One is that the party fractures, probably not into the old Liberal and SDP parties but at least two smaller parties with a lot of membership lost to other parties. One or two of these parties may do quite well at local council level in some parts of the country, but effectively disappear from others. Those parties may pull in a couple of MPs each election, but never be in a position to be king-makers again.
The second is that the party licks it's wounds, finds an interim leader to replace Clegg who has the job of basically keeping things together for a few years before handing the reigns onto someone who they might hope could lead the party back to electoral success at the next general election (assuming it's in 5 years not 6 months). I suspect that the party will become more left wing, distancing itself from the Tory coalition, and in 5-10 years be seen as the credible left-wing alternative to Labour (which may be a good position if Labour continues to move to the right). That would put them on similar ground to the Greens and SNP/PC (in appropriate constituencies) which may make electoral success difficult, with various options in the "left of Labour" space. How well they fight in that space would be dependent on how much they can distance themselves from the last 5 years.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Lib Dems wiped out in Swindon North. But the Labour vote has also gone down. Conservatives have gone up by 4000 to 26000 and UKIP on 8000.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
That's a very definite shift to the right.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
ITV are reporting, "sources say", that Farage has lost. Not confirmed yet though.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
That (Swindon N) is a real surprise. If this were replicated widely it would indicate that UKIP are damaging Labour more than they are the Conservatives even in the South.
[ 07. May 2015, 23:52: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Lib Dems wiped out in Swindon North.
"Lib Dems wiped out in ..." is going to be a very common refrain tonight. It's going to be a very bad night for the LibDems.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The second is that the party licks it's wounds, finds an interim leader to replace Clegg who has the job of basically keeping things together for a few years before handing the reigns onto someone who they might hope could lead the party back to electoral success at the next general election (assuming it's in 5 years not 6 months). I suspect that the party will become more left wing, distancing itself from the Tory coalition, and in 5-10 years be seen as the credible left-wing alternative to Labour (which may be a good position if Labour continues to move to the right). That would put them on similar ground to the Greens and SNP/PC (in appropriate constituencies) which may make electoral success difficult, with various options in the "left of Labour" space. How well they fight in that space would be dependent on how much they can distance themselves from the last 5 years.
I hope this is what happens. The Lib Dem traditions of social liberalism and localism are something the country needs, and I don't see other parties offering those things. It would in fact replicate their old strategy from the early 90s until 2010 where they positioned themselves to the left of Labour in some matters. However, they face two problems. First, they need to find another Ashdown. Second, everyone will remember how spineless they were in government.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I used to vote LibDem. This time I voted Green, and am convinced enough to have joined the Party.
I think there are quite a few others here who are ex-LibDem voters. Is it just me who's sad to see just how crumpled they've been in all of these first four seats? All those years where we voted, thinking it was an investment for the future, and their seats crept up, then Clegg did so well in the 2010 Leaders' Debates, they ended up in Coalition with the hated Tories, but we thought they might moderate them a bit, they didn't really - and their credibility has collapsed as they've been associated with the lies, spin and injustice of the ConDem administration. We've all left them, and they appear to be collapsing.
Ooo - Putney's in - Tory, Labour, LibDem, Green (only just behind LibDem), UKIP, Animal Welfare Party
There's a recount in Galloway's seat, apparently.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
That (Swindon N) is a real surprise. If this were replicated widely it would indicate that UKIP are damaging Labour more than they are the Conservatives even in the South.
I don't see that as surprising. OK, they're a right-wing party, but one that appeals to working class voters who would previously have been voting for Labour.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Putney would seem to confirm impression that UKIP has found London relatively hard going. Labour haven't made much of an impression on the Conservative majority though.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
luvndaisies
You're not alone. I'm bewildered by what they have done.
My alarm bells started to ring after the TV debates when it became clear that much of what Clegg said was guff. And how the parliamentary party handled the coalition with the Tories was beyond ridiculous. Not only did they drive a completely soft bargain, but they spent the first two years pretending that they agreed with everything the Tories did. As far as I can tell, they did this out of some misplaced reliance on convention.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
ITV are reporting, "sources say", that Farage has lost. Not confirmed yet though.
BBC are saying its a UKIP donor who's saying that it looks like Farage has lost.
Let's hope he's right.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Interesting that in Putney every party is up except the Lib Dems.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I used to vote LibDem. This time I voted Green, and am convinced enough to have joined the Party.
Another one time LibDem voter, and if my postal ballot ever arrives I'll put my cross next to the Green candidate. Although, I was very close to voting SNP as well, it was marginal.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Putney
Con 23K
Lab 12K
LD 2K
UKIP 2K
Green 2K
So,
Tories up 2K
Lab up 1K
LD down 5K
UKIP up 1.5K
Green up 1.5K
So no real change there. Interesting to note the poor UKIP showing which is consistent with them polling better where there are less affluent right-wing voters.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
That exit poll - yuck ...
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Another lousy turnout. I had expected it to be higher given that this election was predicted to be so close.
Chap on the till at my local supermarket this evening said it was the first election he could have voted in but he wasn't going to finish work in time.
I pointed out that the polling booths opened at 7am and he didn't start work till 12.30. He said he slept till 10am and then had to call his girlfriend.
I despair.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
luvanddaisies, are you my doppelgänger?
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Not tempted by the Greens. Their instincts are for big-state solutions. They strike me as very different to the Lib Dems.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Interesting that in Putney every party is up except the Lib Dems.
Same in Newcastle East, apparently.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Nothing surprising about Newcastle East. Very safe Labour seat - usual LibDem wipe out.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Could the Greens end up with more votes than the Lib Dems? Currently only 500 between them...
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Yeah, one of my colleagues "couldn't be bothered" because she "doesn't have a political brain".
This from a woman who has been having her working life totally fucked up by the local council who employs her and complaining vociferously about that for the last two years.
[ 08. May 2015, 00:12: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Australian television just had a discussion about why UK results are so slow.
Which was amusing, given that when the UK had a referendum on changing the voting system, there were tall tales spread around Australian results being horrendously slow and that somehow being a result of preferential voting.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Nothing surprising about Newcastle East.
I was surprised that the Conservative vote had grown.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
70% turnout in Tooting !
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
luvanddaisies, are you my doppelgänger?
Well, would it freak you out if I told you I'm Scottish too? (although I live in London).
Tooting results in:
Lab 25263
Con 22421
Green 2201
LibDem 2107
UKIP 1537
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
Labour hold Wandsworth.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Tory vote up by 3K in Tooting. It all looks very consistent with the exit poll.
Greens ahead of Lib Dems (each around 2k) and UKIP didn't do well.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
The Greens are doing OK. They seem to be getting a few percent everywhere.
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Could the Greens end up with more votes than the Lib Dems? Currently only 500 between them...
Does rather seem as votes that might before have gone to the Lib Dems have gone to the Greens. Splitting the left vote. Maybe they should merge into new Liberal Green party.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Could the Greens end up with more votes than the Lib Dems? Currently only 500 between them...
I do hope so
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
If the SNP get all the Scottish seats, are we seeing the end of the union ?
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
luvanddaisies, are you my doppelgänger?
Well, would it freak you out if I told you I'm Scottish too? (although I live in London).
Given I'm English but living in Scotland... maybe a bit
[ 08. May 2015, 00:19: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yangtze:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Could the Greens end up with more votes than the Lib Dems? Currently only 500 between them...
Does rather seem as votes that might before have gone to the Lib Dems have gone to the Greens. Splitting the left vote. Maybe they should merge into new Liberal Green party.
Anecdotally, that would square with what a lot of people I've spoken to have said, as well as what I've done myself.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Well the Telegraph suggested that the nearest parallel would be the 1918 election in which Sinn Fein took all the seats in Ireland outside Ulster.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I haven't seen the exit poll's projected vote. I understand that for the Lib Dems it is the 8-10% that Yougov etc predicted, so higher than the Greens. What is different is the low number of seats - 10 as opposed to 20-30. Presumably this is because the increased Tory vote will mean gains across southern England. I have a folorn hope that the Lib Dems will hold them off, but it's looking increasingly unlikely.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Tories hold Battersea with a swing in their favour.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Battersea held by tories, 67% turnout - strengthened tory vote.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
In this case the LibDem vote seems to have gone largely to the Conservatives! What's driving that?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
We have the first non-Tory or Labour seat. DUP hold Lagan Valley.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Well previously tories have sometimes voted lib dem as a protest or anti-labour vote. They may be reverting to their primary party.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Or possibly Labour voters switching to Tory and Lib Dem voters staying at home.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Anything else in Lagan Valley would indicate the apocalypse. Who came second there?
[ 08. May 2015, 00:30: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
UKIP beat Plaid in Wrexham! Labour hold, of course, but the swing was towards the Tories....
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Anything else in Lagan Valley would indicate the apocalypse. Who came second there?
UUP. UKIP beat Sinn Fein.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
STV News is reporting that Labour has conceded defeat in ALL Glasgow seats.
The days when a teabag with a red rosette would have won with a clear majority anywhere in Glasgow are clearly past ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Some of the talking heads are starting to suggest that the Tories may even end up with a majority in their own right. That would be a disaster for Labour if it proves true.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Nuneaton. Tory gain
Sorry, not gain - Tory hold, but one that Labour really wanted to take.
[ 08. May 2015, 00:51: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
The first key marginal is in - Nuneaton. Conservative hold with an increased majority. Lib Dems wiped out.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Tory hold actually. The LD candidate didn't even seem to be on the podium, which is understandable.
(crossposted with Marvin)
[ 08. May 2015, 00:52: Message edited by: Cod ]
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Anything else in Lagan Valley would indicate the apocalypse. Who came second there?
UUP. UKIP beat Sinn Fein.
Well Lagan Valley is hardly Sinn Fein heartland. However interestingly Sinn Fein are down 5% in West Tyrone, and both SDLP and UUP are up! That's good news in my book...
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Looks to me if the labour vote went green, in Nuneaton.
[ 08. May 2015, 00:53: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
That was one of the big ones for Labour, and the swing went against them. The exit poll is looking more and more accurate as time goes by.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
So in Nuneaton it looked like the LibDem vote went... to UKIP??? Is that possible?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I doubt it was the same people. Could have been LD to Lab and Lab to UKIP, with the percentages just happening to cancel out.
[ 08. May 2015, 01:00: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It's starting to look like the main story from this election could be the rise of UKIP, even if they don't get many seats. They're well ahead in terms of vote share change right now.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
So in Nuneaton it looked like the LibDem vote went... to UKIP??? Is that possible?
Not in big numbers. More likely they were split between Labour, the Greens, nothing, and probably a few UKIP. That would mean an increase in the Labour vote which I reckon was probably offset by Labour votes switching to Tory.
However, some while back, some pollster did a survey of where UKIP support had come from, and a surprising amount did actually come from the Lib Dems. Down in the south, a good deal of the less affluent have voted for them in the past, despite not being particularly pro-Europe or pro-environment. UKIP is a more natural fit for them. UKIP are also very able to take over the protest vote mantle. But I wouldn't expect this in Nuneaton.
Commentators saying that David Laws has lost in Yeovil. Not particularly sorry about that, tbh.
[ 08. May 2015, 01:04: Message edited by: Cod ]
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
I really do not want to increase the wailing and gnashing of teeth here; I really don't.
But the BBC just said Nuneaton indicates the Tories might do better than the BBC exit polls.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yangtze:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Could the Greens end up with more votes than the Lib Dems? Currently only 500 between them...
Does rather seem as votes that might before have gone to the Lib Dems have gone to the Greens. Splitting the left vote. Maybe they should merge into new Liberal Green party.
This actually shows perfectly the difference between FPTP and a preferential system. You would imagine that such people would, in a preferential system, vote 1 Green but then vote 2 Lib Dem, or vice versa. And so those votes would come back together in a left bloc in a preferential system, behind whichever of the 2 parties was more popular in an electorate. But in FPTP the divided vote means a loss for both.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
The first Lib Dem seat is in, and they've held it! Good for them.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Lib Dems hold Ceredigion.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
SNP have destroyed Kilmarnock!
26% swing!
[ 08. May 2015, 01:13: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Marvin's right. Modern methods of exit polling are normally a pretty accurate forecaster of UK election results, even with an election as complex as this one. The Conservatives seem certain to top 300 seats and may even get close to an overall majority.
I am not sure how the UK can remain politically viable as a United Kingdom once the SNP landslide moves from forecast to fact. Those who sowed that wind historically (primarily Thatcher and Blair) have provoked the coming whirlwind. David Cameron may well be the last UK Prime Minister. That may prove to be the most significnt effect of this election.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
SNP have destroyed Kilmarnock!
26% swing!
I think the union just died.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I really do not want to increase the wailing and gnashing of teeth here; I really don't.
But the BBC just said Nuneaton indicates the Tories might do better than the BBC exit polls.
Well I'd quite like to see the UK not break up. One welcome side-effect of the 2014 referendum was that the divisive Alex Salmond got sidelined. Nicola Sturgeon, by contrast, has been for constructive engagement all the way.
However, if the Tories get an overall majority purely on the basis of English and a handful of Welsh seats, Scots will doubtlessly say that the system is stacked against them.
Salmond is already back on the scene commenting that a government without Scottish representation would have "no legitimacy" there. Constitutionally, that's utter horseshit (particularly if Scotland returns only MPs from a party that no one else can vote for), but it shows how the politics may play out.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
SNP have destroyed Kilmarnock!
26% swing!
I think the union just died.
You could be right. Another referendum may well be on the cards in the next 5 years.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
One pundit was suggesting Cameron might offer a federal arrangement - which is not a terrible idea.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Salmond is already back on the scene commenting that a government without Scottish representation would have "no legitimacy" there. Constitutionally, that's utter horseshit (particularly if Scotland returns only MPs from a party that no one else can vote for), but it shows how the politics may play out.
He's never had a problem with the whole West Lothian Question thing, so I don't see how he can complain too much when the boot's on the other foot.
[removed duplicate post - the cider is starting to kick in!!!]
[ 08. May 2015, 01:21: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Douglas Alexander has gone!
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Salmond is already back on the scene commenting that a government without Scottish representation would have "no legitimacy" there. Constitutionally, that's utter horseshit (particularly if Scotland returns only MPs from a party that no one else can vote for), but it shows how the politics may play out.
He's never had a problem with the whole West Lothian Question thing, so I don't see how he can complain too much when the boot's on the other foot.
[removed duplicate post - the cider is starting to kick in!!!]
No doubt he'll be complaining in public, but in private he'll be delighted. He doesn't want the Union to work for Scotland.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Paisley just went to the SNP candidate - a 20 year old student, it was Douglas Alexander there. Wow!
27% swing to the SNP there, and it was a big one for Labour to lose.
[ 08. May 2015, 01:25: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
27% swing !
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
That's it, Labour are dead in Scotland.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I would love to know the turn out.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
39% swing to SNP in Dunbarton!
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's it, Labour are dead in Scotland.
I think anybody but the SNP is dead in Scotland.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
75% turnout. Very decent.
A lot of the SNP support will be from first-time voters. The Tory and Labour parties should be reminded that the SNP are what a political party ought to look like.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
75% turnout in Paisley
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
34% swing to the SNP in Dumbarton!
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
A twenty year old elected!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's it, Labour are dead in Scotland.
I think anybody but the SNP is dead in Scotland.
Point.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would love to know the turn out.
So far, all the Scottish constituencies are above 70% turn out
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I've been waiting for the Scottish constituencies to declare - but I wasn't expecting the level of swing that these first few have been showing. 34% in East Dumbarton!
I guess Mhairi Black in Paisley will be the youngest MP for a very long time - ah, BBC saying she's the youngest since the Reform Act. Good on her, I wish her well.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would love to know the turn out.
So far, all the Scottish constituencies are above 70% turn out
And above 25% swings from Lab to SNP.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I guess Mhairi Black in Paisley will be the youngest MP for a very long time - ah, BBC saying she's the youngest since the Reform Act. Good on her, I wish her well.
Apparently youngest MP since 1662. I hope her party support her well.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I wonder if there are more female voters for SNP.
My understanding, that could be wrong, is that SNP is to the left of labour ?
[ 08. May 2015, 01:33: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
UKIP lose in Castle Point. That was one of their big targets.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
SNP are where Labour used to be. But Labour are seen as having swung to the right, hence the "Red Tories" comments.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Yay, a fragment of good news.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
My understanding, that could be wrong, is that SNP is to the left of labour ?
That's right.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
SNP are where Labour used to be. But Labour are seen as having swung to the right, hence the "Red Tories" comments.
I wonder if Labour didn't pull left enough, I know part of the appeal of the greens - and one of the reasons I considered voting for them - is because they are an actual left wing party.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Scottish Labour were to the left of Westminster Labour. But they were seen as humstrung by the Westminster party.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
One of the talking heads - either on BBC or c4, I forget which, was saying Labour had gone too far to the left. If that's too far to the left, there must be some previous Labour leaders absolutely spinning in their graves.
Bloody Bliar and his 'New Labour' shift to the right.
To think how excited we were in my halls of residence that night in '97 seeing a Labour government taking over from the Tories - the first time any of us had seen a non-Tory administration in our lives. How disappointing the reality was.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
My constituency has now come through, with another massive swing to SNP. Though, now find my intent to vote Green (had I actually got the vote I should have had) was vain since there was no Green candidate! In which case my (non)vote would have joined the SNP swing.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Mench saying something I actually agree with Farage.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
Word is that George Galloway expects to lose.
I hope we can all agree that is good.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Motherwell - was a really safe Labour seat - not this time - another 34% swing to the SNP. Extraordinary.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Oh yes, please - that man is a disgrace.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
To think how excited we were in my halls of residence that night in '97 seeing a Labour government taking over from the Tories - the first time any of us had seen a non-Tory administration in our lives. How disappointing the reality was.
I remember it well. However, the reality is that Labour did pretty much what they said they'd do in their manifesto. I remember, for example, campus being full of students believing that Labour would reinstate student grants. They had simply made no such promise. Papers like the Guardian were full of stuff about how wonderful it would be, but the truth was they simply hadn't been paying attention to what Labour politicians had been saying.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Jo Swinson has gone as well. The surprising thing is that it's not even a surprise anymore...
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
35% swing in Kirkcaldy !
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
And there goes Gordon Brown's old seat. Only a 35% swing.....
This is unprecedented. I'm so glad I stayed up to see what could turn out to be a key moment for the entire country - the entire Union.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Labour gain Burnley, apparently.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Ditto.
Also Nicola Sturgeon promising they won't take their victory as a mandate for independence or another referendum.
Interesting.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Ooh Labour just gained 2 seats.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
The graphics department must be relieved - the Labour to SNP swing thus far nearly went off the swingometer's scale - but not quite. 27% average so far. Gosh.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
Looks like the turkeys have voted for Christmas.
The smears and lies from the vested interests of Murdoch and the rest of the Tory press seems to have won out over against the voices that sought to stand up for the poor and the disabled.
As good a night as it may seem for the SNP, ultimately they still get a Tory-led government, making them as relevant in Parliament as the Lib Dems were in the 90s. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I don't know where Castle Point is, but I just read that the Lib Dems got 80 votes. 0.2%.
That's gotta hurt. I mean, even if it's somewhere they had no expectation of doing well, that's doing BADLY.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Ed Balls is in danger.
Marvellous
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Jim Murphy "on his way out".
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't know where Castle Point is
Essex
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't know where Castle Point is, but I just read that the Lib Dems got 80 votes. 0.2%.
South Essex
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Insightful comment from a pundit, saying that labour thought they were fighting an election about austerity and health - but it has turned out to be an election about nationality.
I think the pundit was right. It is the most sensible explanation I have heard so far.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Ditto.
Also Nicola Sturgeon promising they won't take their victory as a mandate for independence or another referendum.
Interesting.
That's what she's been saying all campaign.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I just wanted to be a bit more precise than Marvin ...
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
As good a night as it may seem for the SNP, ultimately they still get a Tory-led government, making them as relevant in Parliament as the Lib Dems were in the 90s.
Unlike the Lib Dems though, they can turn it into tangible rewards. The argument for large-scale further devolution to Scotland will be irresistable, and independence may be right back on the agenda.
It's an excellent night for the SNP.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Insightful comment from a pundit, saying that labour thought they were fighting an election about austerity and health - but it has turned out to be an election about nationality.
I think the pundit was right. It is the most sensible explanation I have heard so far.
I think it shows people didn't think that Labour could deliver on austerity and health.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Insightful comment from a pundit, saying that labour thought they were fighting an election about austerity and health - but it has turned out to be an election about nationality.
I think the pundit was right. It is the most sensible explanation I have heard so far.
But one of the impressions that has filtered through to me is that the SNP (along with Greens and Plaid Cymru) were actually talking against austerity more strongly than Labour were. The SNP set themselves up as a vote on both issues - on both austerity and nationality.
Given that Scotland as a whole seems more left-leaning than England, a party that set itself up as both distinctly Scottish and distinctly left-wing was well-placed to capture the dissatisfaction with a right-wing, southern-based government.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Murphy's gone.
he very successfully avoided a Portillo moment.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Jim Murphy has gone as well now. The biggest surprise is that that's not really a surprise any more.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Insightful comment from a pundit, saying that labour thought they were fighting an election about austerity and health - but it has turned out to be an election about nationality.
I think the pundit was right. It is the most sensible explanation I have heard so far.
I think it shows people didn't think that Labour could deliver on austerity and health.
They didn't say they would, that is part of the problem (in the sense of refuting the austerity argument and rolling back the privatisation of public services.)
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Wish I'd put money on SNP win every Scottish seat.
At present they are only 3 behind the Tories in the national count.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
How much do you think tories have benefitted in marginals with non-core voters voting tory to keep ukip out ?
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Elsewhere, Tory gains, or marginals Labour was wanting, but failing to take
Of the two available weevils, the lesser is definitely the red one, but I think the blue weevils may be the ones that get the larger share of the biscuit. God help us all.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Jim Murphy has gone as well now. The biggest surprise is that that's not really a surprise any more.
It doesn't seem to have come as a surprise to Jim Murphy.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I say this as a Tory: Jim Murphy, that was bloody well done. Dignity and humility. Fair play to him.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I just wanted to say that I am very, very drunk...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How much do you think tories have benefitted in marginals with non-core voters voting tory to keep ukip out ?
Honestly, I think the bigger benefit has been from Labour and Lib Dem voters moving to UKIP.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I am debating whether more whiskey is required.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I just wanted to say that I am very, very drunk...
I'm getting there. Still a few cans let in the fridge yet, mind - and there's always the GiN.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Looking like Simon Hughes has gone.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Pity, he seems like a nice guy.
Still feeling sad for the LibDems, even though I'm one of those who've turned away from them after the ConDem coalition.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I say this as a Tory: Jim Murphy, that was bloody well done. Dignity and humility. Fair play to him.
Yes, kudos to Jim Murphy.
Margaret Curran has gone too. A very bad night for Scottish Labour.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I do wonder why Plaid Cymri are not as successful as the SNP (in general maybe not a massive landslide.)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Northern Ireland madness: so far, the party with the best overall improvement in performance is the Alliance... for the loss of 1 seat.
And the party with the biggest overall decrease in votes is the Ulster Unionist Party... for the gain of 1 seat.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I do wonder why Plaid Cymri are not as successful as the SNP (in general maybe not a massive landslide.)
Wales is still very much a Labour heartland, and there's not the same kind of nationalism there as there is in Scotland.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
A good many things are driving me crazy about this election.
One of them is the turnout in England - down 2% from a modest enough level in 2010. All the anger about austerity, cuts, immigration, zero hours contracts, bankers' bonuses, high housing cost and so on has translated into .......?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I do wonder why Plaid Cymri are not as successful as the SNP (in general maybe not a massive landslide.)
There are several possible factors.
The Scottish Independence referendum had SNP in the news for months very recently, that publicity can not have hurt them.
The greater devolved powers in the Scottish Parliament compared to the Welsh Assembly has provided the SNP an opportunity to develop and demonstrate some real policies and presence which PC has lacked.
Scotland has been a mix of Labour, SNP and LibDems for a long time. Scottish Labour have had some very public in-fighting and obvious differences from the UK party as a whole (the "branch office" comments are still fresh in voters memories) and the LibDems (as everywhere) have collapsed, the SNP have picked up a lot of votes. In Wales, the Conservatives are much stronger, and Labour in Wales doesn't seem to have suffered from an identity crisis. That's meant there has been less for PC to gain from (the LibDem collapse has benefit everyone fairly).
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Re: turnout. People take coalition to mean, doesn't matter who you vote for.
[ 08. May 2015, 02:35: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Tim Farron has kept his lib dem seat in Cumbria - my parents will be pleased - I had thought it might go back tory.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Galloway has lost his seat in Bradford, apparently.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Re: turnout. People take coalition to mean, doesn't matter who you vote for.
Pretty poor stuff.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I can't find figures, but reports are saying turnout was high in Scotland. `
Anyone have any figures for turnout?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Galloway has lost his seat in Bradford, apparently.
Good
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
My home seat of Warley has gone to Labour with an increased majority. Hardly a surprise, that one, but it's always good to see ones own constituency declared.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Looks like the turkeys have voted for Christmas.
The smears and lies from the vested interests of Murdoch and the rest of the Tory press seems to have won out over against the voices that sought to stand up for the poor and the disabled.
As good a night as it may seem for the SNP, ultimately they still get a Tory-led government, making them as relevant in Parliament as the Lib Dems were in the 90s.
As a matter of political reality, I'm sure that won't fly. The Conservatives will offer immediate D-Max (maximum devolution) to Scotland. A real maximum devolution, not some cosmetic job.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I can't find figures, but reports are saying turnout was high in Scotland. `
Anyone have any figures for turnout?
70%ish the ones I've seen.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I can't find figures, but reports are saying turnout was high in Scotland. `
Anyone have any figures for turnout?
Latest BBC website figures:
England 63.5%
Scotland 70.7%
Wales 64.5%
Northern Ireland 56.5%
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Cross-pond they don't expect us to understand anything about UK politics, so all the reports are about How Wrong All The Polls Were. The election was supposed to be a cliff hanger, and apparently the Tories are sweeping in.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
Ye Gods.
The only debate of note: sleep or vodka. Hmm, sleep or vodka.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
The last UK-wide +70% turnout was 1992. John Major's Conservatives actually got more votes (just over 14m) than any party since, including Labour in 1997.
By contrast, turnouts in NZ general elections historically is mid 70s to the 90s.
I wish more people in the UK would give a shit.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Shetland have bucked the trend and retained a lib dem mp.
(Despite a 24% swing to the snp.)
[ 08. May 2015, 03:00: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Lib Dems hold Orkney and Shetland, probably their safest seat in Scotland.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Shetland have bucked the trend and retained a lib dem mp.
My boss is a Lib Dem. he said that if they lost that seat he'd eat his desk - it's as safe as any seat can possibly be.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
If anywhere in Scotland wasn't going to follow the swing to the SNP it would be Shetland and Orkney.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Which means the Lib Dems are likely to be the only party with representation from each of the three parts of Great Britain.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If anywhere in Scotland wasn't going to follow the swing to the SNP it would be Shetland and Orkney.
Still a 24% swing to the SNP and a very close result. It's astonishing really.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Thus far, UKIP is fourth (behind Lab, Con and SNP) in terms of votes cast. How many of you still think PR would be a good thing for the UK?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
At present the BBC website is struggling, so I'm not actually seeing the numbers for any of these results. I'm relying on you guys (well, I could try other news sites ... but the BBC graphics are pretty).
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I prefer that my choice of MP is not delegated to a faceless party goon.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Thus far, UKIP is fourth (behind Lab, Con and SNP) in terms of votes cast. How many of you still think PR would be a good thing for the UK?
I still think PR of some form (probably the system used up here for the Scottish Parliament) would be a good thing. It would give UKIP more seats than they currently have, but I also think a lot of their vote would evaporate when people can vote for what they want rather than just register a protest.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Thus far, UKIP is fourth (behind Lab, Con and SNP) in terms of votes cast. How many of you still think PR would be a good thing for the UK?
Depends what kind really. Single transferable vote might render very different results.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I prefer that my choice of MP is not delegated to a faceless party goon.
You think that isn't largely the case now? Who get's to decide who the candidate will be for each party? Some faceless goons in a back office somewhere most likely. You can always vote for another party if you really dislike the candidate. But, you can do that under PR as well.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Simon Hughes has gone.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Thus far, UKIP is fourth (behind Lab, Con and SNP) in terms of votes cast. How many of you still think PR would be a good thing for the UK?
Yes, some form of PR would be better than the current system.
Yes, that will mean that there will be times when the election result would not be to my choosing. But, that's no different from the current system is it?
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I prefer that my choice of MP is not delegated to a faceless party goon.
You think that isn't largely the case now? Who get's to decide who the candidate will be for each party? Some faceless goons in a back office somewhere most likely. You can always vote for another party if you really dislike the candidate. But, you can do that under PR as well.
Not under FPTP. You can choose for whichever candidate you like best by putting an 'x' against the candidate's name. By contrast, under most forms of PR, including the form used in Scotland, a portion of MPs elected are off a closed list. It is more accurate to describe those people as appointed, not elected.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Ed Miliband arriving for his count with a very forced smile on his face...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Thus far, UKIP is fourth (behind Lab, Con and SNP) in terms of votes cast. How many of you still think PR would be a good thing for the UK?
I think it's incredibly difficult to know how many people would vote differently if the voting system was different.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Alex Salmond is en route for Westminster.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Thus far, UKIP is fourth (behind Lab, Con and SNP) in terms of votes cast. How many of you still think PR would be a good thing for the UK?
I think it's incredibly difficult to know how many people would vote differently if the voting system was different.
An excellent point. During the AV referendum, it seemed assumed on all sides that a change in voting system would not change people's voting behaviour. Actually, it changes it significantly.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
UKIP have their first seat - Carswell holds Clacton.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
UKIP has held Clactpon. Boooo
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
In other news, I have to be at work in 4 1/2 hours. Beginning to think it might be better to stay up all night and pay for it over the weekend...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Con hold Thurrock against Lab and UKIP.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I prefer that my choice of MP is not delegated to a faceless party goon.
You think that isn't largely the case now? Who get's to decide who the candidate will be for each party? Some faceless goons in a back office somewhere most likely. You can always vote for another party if you really dislike the candidate. But, you can do that under PR as well.
Not under FPTP. You can choose for whichever candidate you like best by putting an 'x' against the candidate's name. By contrast, under most forms of PR, including the form used in Scotland, a portion of MPs elected are off a closed list. It is more accurate to describe those people as appointed, not elected.
Under FPTP, I walk into the election booth and put my cross next to the candidate for a particular party. If I really don't like that person I might consider switching to another party, but how bad does someone have to be for someone to vote against the party with the policies that best reflect their opinions because of the candidate?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I have set my alarms ...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
UKIP has held Clactpon. Boooo
Where's that? Maybe Crapped-on would be a better name.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
The SNP hasn't taken Orkney and Shetland. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
eta: even though they didn't field the blithering idiot who stood for them for most of the past 20 years.
[ 08. May 2015, 03:28: Message edited by: Piglet ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Under FPTP, I walk into the election booth and put my cross next to the candidate for a particular party. If I really don't like that person I might consider switching to another party, but how bad does someone have to be for someone to vote against the party with the policies that best reflect their opinions because of the candidate?
You vote for an individual who may or may not be affiliated to a political party. If you don't like that person, you can vote for another individual.
Under FPTP you cannot vote for a "party". I think that is a good thing, and I hope any change in the voting system will keep that the same.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Interestingly, the current tallies have Con, Lab and LD all losing vote share while the Nats and Greens are gaining. That doesn't translate to seats, of course, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
UKIP has held Clactpon. Boooo
Probably all they're going to get, unless Farage squeaks home in Thanet South.
Also 10 is looking a generous estimate for the Lib Dems. If people like Hughes, Featherstone and Davey can't hang on, who can? Apparently even Vince Cable might lose his seat and he had a monster majority in 2010.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Under FPTP, I walk into the election booth and put my cross next to the candidate for a particular party. If I really don't like that person I might consider switching to another party, but how bad does someone have to be for someone to vote against the party with the policies that best reflect their opinions because of the candidate?
You vote for an individual who may or may not be affiliated to a political party. If you don't like that person, you can vote for another individual.
Under FPTP you cannot vote for a "party". I think that is a good thing, and I hope any change in the voting system will keep that the same.
And, under the Scottish system there's nothing stopping an Independent standing for the regional seats either.
But, yes my prefered version of PR would be some form of STV on multi-member constituencies (3-6 current constituencies) where you vote for individuals (with or without party affiliation).
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Boris is back.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Labour hold Edinburgh South. One crumb of comfort for Scottish Labour.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Labour has held a Scottish seat !
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
... You vote for an individual who may or may not be affiliated to a political party. If you don't like that person, you can vote for another individual ...
That's a fair point, Cod - when I lived in Orkney, like many people there, I was voting for the person rather than the party.
Or, as my cross-post above suggests, not voting for the person, although the SNP were never very strong in Orkney anyway. It didn't help their cause that their candidate was a plonker.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Vince Cable has lost as well. This is a real disaster for the Lib Dems.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Vince Cable has lost his seat.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
... You vote for an individual who may or may not be affiliated to a political party. If you don't like that person, you can vote for another individual ...
That's a fair point, Cod - when I lived in Orkney, like many people there, I was voting for the person rather than the party.
I think that functionally that is unusual, except in the case of voting for an independent candidate.
First and foremost, the majority of people will consider policies. Which will be the policies of a party, each individual candidate won't hold opinions vastly different from the party (otherwise they'd be in a different party or wouldn't be selected to stand).
If there are two parties with policies that you basically agree with (which may mean you personally sit between two sets of policies) then the individual candidates each party presents you with are going to be more significant in your choice. But, there are not many people in that position, most of us will be much closer to one party than the others.
The exceptions are with Independents, by definition you vote entirely based on the personal political views of the candidate. And, probably a sitting MP who has been spectacularly bad at representing the constituency (in the opinion of the voter at least), which would then be a vote against that individual.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think that functionally that is unusual, except in the case of voting for an independent candidate.
Simon Hughes was arguably a case of personal support over party. It just wasn't enough to get past the "you betrayed us to the Tories" thing.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Here we go for Clegg. Will he survive?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Here we go for Clegg. Will he survive?
Yep.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
A good sitting MP will get votes regardless of party. If Malcolm Bruce hadn't retired, he would have had a lot more votes than his LibDem replacement in this constituency.
Charles Kennedy is another MP whose popularity has transcended party politics, although I think he may well lose tonight.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Here we go for Clegg. Will he survive?
Yep.
Damn.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Here we go for Clegg. Will he survive?
Yep.
Damn.
Very strong hint in his speech that he'll step down as party leader though.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
David Mundell narrowly holds Dumfries for the Tories.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
David Mundell narrowly holds Dumfries for the Tories.
Which means they will have at least one seat in all three countries in the British mainland.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
... You vote for an individual who may or may not be affiliated to a political party. If you don't like that person, you can vote for another individual ...
That's a fair point, Cod - when I lived in Orkney, like many people there, I was voting for the person rather than the party.
I think that functionally that is unusual, except in the case of voting for an independent candidate.
First and foremost, the majority of people will consider policies. Which will be the policies of a party, each individual candidate won't hold opinions vastly different from the party (otherwise they'd be in a different party or wouldn't be selected to stand).
But that's not anything like the full story. Candidates also campaign what makes them as individuals a good choice as MP, ie, their own personal achievements.
Not only that, but personal vote is clearly a very important part of remaining elected. Simon Hughes has been given as an example, but there are countless other people who could be mentioned too.
When I vote it is quite normal for me to consider what the person says they will do, and whether they are going to do a good job at it. The first does reflect party affiliation. The second doesn't at all.
I do fear that the stranglehold political parties have on the electoral process would only get worse under PR, resulting in ever more sanitised candidates chosen on the basis of focus groups and market research rather than normal people from normal backgrounds who wish to represent the people around them.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
David Mundell narrowly holds Dumfries for the Tories.
Also Labour have held Edinburgh South
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Charles Kennedy has lost as well.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I do fear that the stranglehold political parties have on the electoral process would only get worse under PR, resulting in ever more sanitised candidates chosen on the basis of focus groups and market research rather than normal people from normal backgrounds who wish to represent the people around them.
That's certainly true for a list system, but list systems are evil. For a real multi-member constituency with STV or some Condorcet method to elect the members, I'm not sure it is.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Let's see what Ed has to say.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's see what Ed has to say.
A concession speech in all but name.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Not quite a concession. I guess he is biding his time, just in case.
[ 08. May 2015, 04:28: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Not quite, but all but. I think he knows he'll be back on the backbenches by June.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
The Tories are winning seats from Labour in South Wales. Do I need to say more?
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I do fear that the stranglehold political parties have on the electoral process would only get worse under PR, resulting in ever more sanitised candidates chosen on the basis of focus groups and market research rather than normal people from normal backgrounds who wish to represent the people around them.
That's certainly true for a list system, but list systems are evil. For a real multi-member constituency with STV or some Condorcet method to elect the members, I'm not sure it is.
Correct. However, it is the evil type of PR that has been chosen for European elections and for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. There seems to be a disinclination for STV generally, with the exception of the NI Assembly. I suspect that PR for Westminster elections would result in closed lists.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
The SNP hasn't taken Orkney and Shetland.
I expect they're holding out for re-unification with Norway.
I'm not surprised Iain Murray held Edinburgh South: he's put in the work these last 5 years and he fought on his record. Even the guy in the yellow rosette outside the polling station admitted he'd voted for him.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
A small thing perhaps in the greater scheme of things, but the Tories just took the lead for the first time in terms of both seats and votes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Sinn Fein lost a seat. Does that do anything ironic to the electoral math for the Conservatives reaching majority government in their own right?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Danny Alexander has gone as well. Which should come as no surprise at this point...
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sinn Fein lost a seat. Does that do anything ironic to the electoral math for the Conservatives reaching majority government in their own right?
Yes, it might (depending, of course, on which party won the seat). Sinn Fein MPs don't occupy their seats in the Commons, if I remember correctly.
The media here have been saying that although 326 seats are a Commons majority, the biggest party could have an effective majority with 323 seats (partly because of Sinn Fein and partly because the Speaker not voting, IIRC). I think I saw BBC predicting that the Conservatives would get 325 seats a few minutes ago.
[ 08. May 2015, 04:57: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sinn Fein lost a seat. Does that do anything ironic to the electoral math for the Conservatives reaching majority government in their own right?
No. Sinn Fein traditionally don't actually take up their seats because they refuse to swear the loyal oath to the Queen, so their seats have never really mattered. One imagines the Unionists will support the Tories in most votes even if they don't join in a formal coalition.
To be honest, the Northern Irish seats aren't normally thought about much during general elections. It's only because this one looked like being so close that they might have been relevant.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sinn Fein lost a seat. Does that do anything ironic to the electoral math for the Conservatives reaching majority government in their own right?
No. Sinn Fein traditionally don't actually take up their seats because they refuse to swear the loyal oath to the Queen
That's why it might do something Ironic, there's now someone slightly more pro-cameron than sinn-fein but who will be there.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Only one Scottish seat left, and it's going to a recount. The sitting Lib Dem has conceded, it's between the Tories and the SNP. If the Tories get it, betjemaniac's prediction that the Tories would be the second party in Scotland will come true.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I see your point.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Galloway took an absolute hiding.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Didn't he just. That's not bad news.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
The SNP hasn't taken Orkney and Shetland.
I expect they're holding out for re-unification with Norway ...
Funny you should say that - D. wondered if we'd be singing Ja, vi elsker dette landet* next time we're in Orkney.
* The Norwegian national anthem.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
At the moment there are only two constituencies I'm really waiting to here from.
Thanet South - hopefully wiping that smug grin off Farage's face
Brighton - hoping Caroline Lucas holds on
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
... voting for the person rather than the party.
I think that functionally that is unusual, except in the case of voting for an independent candidate ...
Unusual, yes, but not unheard-of. After decades of returning Conservatives, in (I think) 1997, Colchester (D's home town) elected a Liberal Democrat (who had previously been a Labour town councillor). He turned out to be a very good constituency MP, and has only now been defeated; my understanding was that many people would have voted for the man rather than the party.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At the moment there are only two constituencies I'm really waiting to here from.
Thanet South - hopefully wiping that smug grin off Farage's face
Brighton - hoping Caroline Lucas holds on
I'd actually agree with both of those wishes.
Posted by crunt (# 1321) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I do wonder why Plaid Cymri are not as successful as the SNP (in general maybe not a massive landslide.)
To add to Marvin and Alan's points; I think that a lot of people in Wales might support Plaid's left-leaning policies, but they're skittish about the language issue. An agenda that the Scottish Nationalists don't push as hard as the Welsh ones.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Well, I shall be interested to see how the SNP walk the walk. They have sold themselves as the party of the Left - let's see how that works out.
Labour's rebuild in Scotland as to come via the Scottish Parliament. In a way, it's what I hoped for when it was first established - that we would get quality representatives choosing to make their political careers here rather than in Westminster. A hope that was not altogether easy to sustain in the light of the post-Dewar Labour FMs.
It was forseeable ble, I suppose, that if anyone was going to prioritise Scotland, it would be the Nationalists, and the electorate have rewarded them.
[ 08. May 2015, 06:01: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
BBC exit poll: Con 316, Lab 239, LD 10, SNP 58, UKIP 2, Green 2, PC 4, Others 19.
If this is correct, I don't want to live in this country any more. I don't want to live in a country ruled by and for fucking stupid selfish bastards and their dupes.
I have avoided any news until about five minutes ago. I feel sick, and totally agree with you.
I hear Kipling "If England were as England seems, and not the England of our dreams, how quick we'd leave her, but she ain't." But she is, isn't she?
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
The Guardian's current count has SNP with 1.4m votes which gets them 55 seats, and UKIP with 3.2m votes, which gets them 1 seat.
Wow. I mean, I know why it happens, but still, wow.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
Well, at least Caroline Lucas won.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The Guardian's current count has SNP with 1.4m votes which gets them 55 seats, and UKIP with 3.2m votes, which gets them 1 seat.
Wow. I mean, I know why it happens, but still, wow.
Oh not this again.
1.4m votes in 59 seats, versus 3.2m votes in close to 650 seats.
If you actually did a per seat comparison, you'd be saying wow for completely different reasons. The SNP got enough votes to sweep the seats they actually contested under almost any electoral system.
A far more sensible comparison is between UKIP and the Lib Dems.
[ 08. May 2015, 06:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Drifted off to sleep for a couple of hours. Woke up to the nightmare of that Exit Poll having been pretty much right about the Tories - in fact, it looks like so many of the turkeys did the bidding of the right-wind press and voted for christmas, that they might even make it to a majority.
At least Caroline Lucas held her Brighton seat and increased her majority.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
To the victor the spoils in just about every way then. Cameron wins, and Milliband, Clegg and possibly Farage could all be gone by the end of today.
Osborne rubbing it in by saying he was sorry to see Danny Alexander go but that Lib Dems had paid the price for distancing themselves from the last government's success.
Ashdon will be eating his hat though apparently...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
What now? The question now for me is what I can do to help protect the Tories' prospective victims over the next five years.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Ashdown will be eating his hat though apparently...
Andrew Neil has a hat ready in the studio he says is for that purpose.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Some time ago, I watched a programme about Athens, in which the personable young man explained how, after the democratic stuff we all learn about, where the demos had to be involved in government because otherwise they wouldn't power the triremes, the oligarchs took back the reins of government. I had the feeling at the time that he wasn't just talking about Classical Athens.
As Lindsey Davis' Roman novels weren't just talking about the loss of the Republic.
I think I want a liberal/green party - and I'm glad Caroline Lucas held on, despite the complaints about the council's policies. But it doesn't matter now, because it's all gone forever, the good stuff, the caring, the concern for the weaker members of society. They are going to ensure that we can never have the NHS back, the schools back, all to be in the hands of mad Republican run companies from the US until the sea rises and swallows everything up.
I find myself remembering the careful description in the appeal to the Emperor of the last Roman Britons - the barbarians drive us into the sea, and the sea drives us back to the barbarians. And th barbarians are my neighbours, and the sea will rise much further than it did in the 5th century.
And I'm writing like this even though I didn't stay up, and carefully did not, as I usually do, have the radio on under my pillow to send me to sleep.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The Guardian's current count has SNP with 1.4m votes which gets them 55 seats, and UKIP with 3.2m votes, which gets them 1 seat.
Wow. I mean, I know why it happens, but still, wow.
Oh not this again.
1.4m votes in 59 seats, versus 3.2m votes in close to 650 seats.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Thanks for the lesson, professor. As I said, I know why it happens.
But, still, wow.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Ashdown will be eating his hat though apparently...
Andrew Neil has a hat ready in the studio he says is for that purpose.
Ashdown has just declined, but said he will do it next to Campbell eating his kilt
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
So, what is the political lesson here? Or is there one? How much of this result boils down to issues of personality, or even simply appearance? I will be honest here, I had a very hard time imaging Ed Miliband as prime minister. Maybe lots of actual voters had that same problem and voted with their guts...
Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on
:
Penny S said:
quote:
But it doesn't matter now, because it's all gone forever, the good stuff, the caring, the concern for the weaker members of society. They are going to ensure that we can never have the NHS back, the schools back, all to be in the hands of mad Republican run companies from the US until the sea rises and swallows everything up.
I feel your pain. My only hope is that the Tories start infighting over the promised referendum on Europe so they don't have time to muck every thing else up even more.
One of my husband's friends has just sent him an email full of smiley faces as our seat went blue - grrr.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Ed Balls gone in Leeds. And Mark Reckless too. Ukip could be down to one...
(Wrong Ukip man completely)
[ 08. May 2015, 07:23: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Ed Balls has gone.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I can't find it at the moment, but somewhere in the middle of this thread, I did predict a week or so ago that it was curtains for Balls, and the Tories would have most seats and most votes (absolutely did not see a majority or close to one though).
Didn't call Scotland right, although the vote in Berwickshire is very tight between the SNP and the Tories who came second, but the Conservatives did hold their one Scottish seat.
I think this is where I retire from punditry while I'm ahead
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
So, Conservatives have won seats from Labour (Balls being notable ) the Lib Dems, and UKIP. Seems the only foe they didn't vanquish was SNP, but SNP have helped finish off Labour on top of all that.
Good day for Cameron who can rely on NI Unionists to get started by bunging a few billion their say.
Which pollsters have come out best then?
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So, what is the political lesson here? Or is there one? How much of this result boils down to issues of personality, or even simply appearance? I will be honest here, I had a very hard time imaging Ed Miliband as prime minister. Maybe lots of actual voters had that same problem and voted with their guts...
People will deny it, but the way politicians look is almost certainly more influential than you may think. Politics is, in essence, all about the way things look.
Ed Miliband stumbling in the last election debate, being shown eating a bacon sandwich on the cover of The Sun, being portrayed on Newzoids as ineffective and wimpy ('At least I tried'). These are the things which politics lecturers will be talking to their students about in years to come when analysing the whole thing.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The Guardian's current count has SNP with 1.4m votes which gets them 55 seats, and UKIP with 3.2m votes, which gets them 1 seat.
Wow. I mean, I know why it happens, but still, wow.
Oh not this again.
1.4m votes in 59 seats, versus 3.2m votes in close to 650 seats.
Thanks for the lesson, professor. As I said, I know why it happens.
But, still, wow.
But the total figure is completely meaningless! Why are you quoting it?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
A perfect result for the SNP. And for UKIP! Perfect. Britain continues it's post-war 57% Tory to 43% Labour government tradition. We're a marginally nasty country as usual.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Which pollsters have come out best then?
Well, the exit poll compilers must be patting each other on the back.
Oh wow, just as I posted that they showed a graphic comparing the Exit Poll to the real figures so far - and they're almost identical.
[ 08. May 2015, 07:54: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Labour seem to have bucked the trend where I live. Here in Croydon North the Labour majority actually increased. In the neighbouring constituency of Croydon Central (where I was trudging the streets yesterday getting the Labour vote out) the Tory held the seat but with a majority of only 165.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I can't help but wonder what the result would have been if most of the press were not pro-conservative, rather like the republicans in the US. An electorate fed poor information and misinformation and diverted from important issues so they can be left in back rooms is not really able to express itself democratically. Well - I guess by definition democracy is by the will of the people - so the Greeks left a lot of leeway for how opinions might be made and changed.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
That's the frustrating thing, Itsarumdo - the number of people who just believe what they read in the paper. I wonder whether there could ever be a way to actually measure the "It's the Sun Wot Won It" effect.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
The press is only one part of the media, and the BBC, an important part of the media, is not right wing. Also the print media is declining in importance. Doesn't seem to have hurt the right-wing parties in this election.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The press is only one part of the media, and the BBC, an important part of the media, is not right wing.
It's not as right-wing as the print press, but it's not left-wing - look at the airtime it has given to UKIP over the last year or two, or how it covered the Scottish Independence Referendum a few months ago.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
We've a majority of people who want a government that thinks human rights are something to be got rid of and welfare is a word for something bad.
I thought I could walk and work this off at the outdoor gym, but no. And I haven't met anyone to have a sensible discussion with - I know my direct neighbours will be OK for that when I see them, but I can't trust anyone else.
Many moons ago, our family was sitting in church behind three old ladies, retired private school teachers, the Sunday after Thatcher got in. One turned round and beamed at us, and declared how wonderful it was, like a heavy dark cloud lifted off our shoulders. We were silent.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The press is only one part of the media, and the BBC, an important part of the media, is not right wing.
It's not as right-wing as the print press, but it's not left-wing - look at the airtime it has given to UKIP over the last year or two, or how it covered the Scottish Independence Referendum a few months ago.
I don't think there's anything remarkable about its coverage of UKIP, to be honest, nor do I see referendum as a left/right wing matter.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The Guardian's current count has SNP with 1.4m votes which gets them 55 seats, and UKIP with 3.2m votes, which gets them 1 seat.
Wow. I mean, I know why it happens, but still, wow.
Oh not this again.
1.4m votes in 59 seats, versus 3.2m votes in close to 650 seats.
Thanks for the lesson, professor. As I said, I know why it happens.
But, still, wow.
But the total figure is completely meaningless! Why are you quoting it?
The figure is the number of people who voted for a UKIP candidate. That's its meaning. Why are you behaving as though my surprise was some sort of ghastly social faux pax?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:
Didn't call Scotland right, although the vote in Berwickshire is very tight between the SNP and the Tories who came second, but the Conservatives did hold their one Scottish seat.
You weren't far wrong. You predicted that the Tories would be the second largest party in Scotland in terms of seats, and if a few hundred votes had gone the other way in Berwick, you'd have been right.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
Or faux pas even!
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:
Didn't call Scotland right, although the vote in Berwickshire is very tight between the SNP and the Tories who came second, but the Conservatives did hold their one Scottish seat.
You weren't far wrong. You predicted that the Tories would be the second largest party in Scotland in terms of seats, and if a few hundred votes had gone the other way in Berwick, you'd have been right.
On the plus side, the SNP's crack team of panda purchasers (sort of a Scottish equivalent of the Tower of London ravenmaster) can stand down!
[ 08. May 2015, 09:05: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Well, I'm used to a representative vote system (in Germany). I note that under such a system, Labour would have gained more (+1.5%) than the Conservatives (+0.7%), with the Liberal Democrats still tanking horribly (-15.1%). The big news story would the left wing (Greens +2.8%, SNP +3.2%, together +6%) and right wing (UKIP +9.5%) radicalisation.
The only possible government would then be Con+UKIP+LD, and re-elections would be likely. However, sticking with German rules, we have the "5% hurdle" that will discount any party not gaining at least 5%, in order to avoid fracturing a la Italy. Under that rule, both SNP (4.9%, close but no cigar) and Greens (3.7%) would be eliminated. The percentage count then would be adjusted for the remaining parties.
I make the "5% hurdle" adjusted figures out to be
Conservatives 41.9%
Labour 34.9%
UKIP 14.3%
Liberal Democrats 8.8%
So under the German election system, the most likely outcome would be a renewal of the Con+LD coalition.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yes, and under that 5% rule the party that received 50% of the vote of an entire nation would have no representatives in Westminster. Yeah right, that would make the Scots really feel like their opinions and concerns mattered to Westmonster.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
betjemaniac: quote:
...the SNP's crack team of panda purchasers (sort of a Scottish equivalent of the Tower of London ravenmaster) can stand down!
I didn't think anything would make me smile this morning, but I was wrong. Thanks.
Unfortunately we're stuck with Katie Hopkins Unless we can persuade the Alaskans to take her?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I'm sure there's somewhere really cold, really really remote in Alaska. Somewhere where she has no company except the polar bears. I wonder if they would consider inviting her for dinner?
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
IngoB 'representative' of what? Party vote?
Nigel Farage is on the BBC at the moment moaning about the unfairness of FPTP and basically saying the same stuff that the Lib Dems have said for years, and the Alliance before them, and the Liberals before them, but as if he's the first to say it. He should remember that it starts to sound self-serving after a while.
At any rate, electoral reform is dead in the water for five years at least.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
As regards the media - the SNP people have said that the impact of social media is massive and very significant in getting them where they are.
On the other hand Russell Brands video and podcasts were either irrelevant (in spite of huge followers) or just too little too late for people to get their heads round when he suddenly said "actually you should vote"
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, and under that 5% rule the party that received 50% of the vote of an entire nation would have no representatives in Westminster. Yeah right, that would make the Scots really feel like their opinions and concerns mattered to Westmonster.
There is in fact something similar going on in Germany. In Bavaria, there is a different conservative party (CSU) to the one running nation-wide (CDU). What these conservative parties have done is to officially combine concerning the national vote only, so that CSU national votes in Bavaria count for the CDU+CSU agglomerate in the national election.
If we for a moment forget that the SNP is a Scottish independence party, and consider it just as a left wing party, then under the German system it would be sensible for Labour to strike a similar deal with the SNP, and basically enter the national election as a Lab+SNP agglomerate.
Of course, that the SNP has ambitions to make Scotland independent IMHO means that it is actually a good outcome if they are not represented in the UK parliament. Just as it would be a good outcome if UKIP was not represented in the EU parliament. Those who wish to destroy a political union are de facto enemies of the parliament of that political union, no matter how good or bad they are concerning other political matters.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Thanet South result's in...
Farage for UKIP -16026
Tories - 18838
At least Farage didn't get a seat, that's a small glimmer of hope.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
FARAGE OUT
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we for a moment forget that the SNP is a Scottish independence party, and consider it just as a left wing party, then under the German system it would be sensible for Labour to strike a similar deal with the SNP, and basically enter the national election as a Lab+SNP agglomerate.
But Labour and the SNP are different, and it's not just about independence.
What you're advocating is instead of a rich variety of political parties we just merge them altogether into a very small number. It's the political equivalent of converting a rich, diverse ecosystem into a monoculture. In ecology biodiversity is a sign of a strong, healthy ecosystem. The same is, IMO, true of nation states. We need a diversity of parties (and independents), and a diversity of cultures etc.
[ 08. May 2015, 09:37: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
I'd love to know how the individual vote transfers worked out. Scotland is clear - a large chunk of the leftist vote moved from Labour and the Lib Dems to the SNP.
In the rest of the UK, the numbers show the Conservatives more or less holding steady (small gain), and a transfer of most of the LD vote to UKIP, Labour and the Greens. The transfer from LD to Lab / Green would seem to be the left-wing end of the Lib Dem support abandoning the party of collaboration but a 10% transfer from Lib Dem to UKIP doesn't make much sense.
Is it a transfer from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives, and a simultaneous transfer from the Tories to UKIP, or did all the LD voters go Labour, and the UKIP support is mostly anti-immigrant sentiment in "white van man".
Essentially, who are the UKIP voters? They got almost twice as many votes as the Lib Dems across England, despite only maintaining the one MP. I suspect that the idea of summing the Conservative and UKIP vote and calling it a roughly 50% vote for the right of centre is probably not an accurate picture of what was really going on.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
IngoB 'representative' of what? Party vote?
Yes. And I think the Conservatives would be wise to consider a "party vote" proportional system with a small percentage hurdle. The FPTP system may work in the interest of the big parties if the political fracturing is minor, i.e., it is very stable against minor motions. But that comes at the price of being highly unstable against major motions. If the LD recover, and the UKIP 2020 strategy is working, then Conservatives could face the same kind of horrible crash that Labour is facing now. Note that the party vote of Labour has increased, but they are still getting trashed on the seats. It looks to me like "more than two" party politics is here to stay in the UK, and I think FPTP just doesn't work in those circumstances, not even for the big parties.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
IngoB,
It depends on whether one considers the party system to be an essential part of a democracy. I strongly dislike the component of most PR systems by which the link between voter and member of parliament is broken, and replaced by a party list. Essentially this means members of parliament are appointed by party functionaries. That cannot be right.
A good thing about FPTP is that it does allow local parties to do well. That is the nature of the system - localities elect their own representatives. I think this is something to be cherished.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
So it's looking pretty certain that Cleg, Milliband and Farage will all be stepping down from their leadership positions of their parties. I do hope that Labour resist the temptation to move to the right again - same for the LibDems. (and I hope UKIP move to defenestrate themselves)
The discussion on the BBC seems to think that this Election Labour have gone too far to the left. They're not even in the centre - let alone left. Geez. We're a country of right-wing loonies.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, and under that 5% rule the party that received 50% of the vote of an entire nation would have no representatives in Westminster. Yeah right, that would make the Scots really feel like their opinions and concerns mattered to Westmonster.
Of course, that the SNP has ambitions to make Scotland independent IMHO means that it is actually a good outcome if they are not represented in the UK parliament. Just as it would be a good outcome if UKIP was not represented in the EU parliament. Those who wish to destroy a political union are de facto enemies of the parliament of that political union, no matter how good or bad they are concerning other political matters.
Rubbish. MPs should vote for the best for the people of the UK even if it means voting for the abolition of the polity of the UK.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But Labour and the SNP are different, and it's not just about independence.
What you're advocating is instead of a rich variety of political parties we just merge them altogether into a very small number. It's the political equivalent of converting a rich, diverse ecosystem into a monoculture. In ecology biodiversity is a sign of a strong, healthy ecosystem. The same is, IMO, true of nation states. We need a diversity of parties (and independents), and a diversity of cultures etc.
The CSU and the CDU in Germany are also quite different, reflecting the nature of Bavaria (it's a bit like Texas in the USA). The German system has shown way more "biodiversity" than the UK system. Heck, in Germany the Greens are a long established party, who have been in power in several coalitions. And there is always the alternative of going "nationwide", like in Germany the "Linke" (literally called "the Left"). That started as a mostly East German party, but they have tried hard to push into the West and are now in the national parliament.
But there is always as well the question of forming stable governments. You do not want diversity that leads to chaos, like in Italy. The "5% hurdle" is a simple system that mostly does the job. And in fact, as I have computed the numbers above, it would have done the job in this particular UK election. Without it, there would be no realistic chance to form a majority government, with it, there would be.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
You're considering matters purely from a party perspective, and as a result completely miss a good deal of 'biodiversity'.
Under FPTP, the fact that individual MPs are elected by their constituents makes for plenty of variation. You can see this from the different priorities party MPs elected for different areas have. Getting offside with the Party whip isn't a good thing, but you can't, say, be kicked out of Parliament. Only your constituents can do that. I regard it as a great pity that in recent years political parties have sought to exercised increased centralised control over who local parties select as their candidates.
As for the 5% threshhold: it's a purely arbitrary rule that can't be justified on any principled basis.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Jim Murphy toeing the Labour Party line that Labour's losses are all the nasty SNP's fault. Even with every single one of the 59 Scottish seats, Labour wouldn't have more seats than the Tories.
"boo hoo, they stole our seats, it's all their fault" doesn't really work in that context.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It depends on whether one considers the party system to be an essential part of a democracy. I strongly dislike the component of most PR systems by which the link between voter and member of parliament is broken, and replaced by a party list. Essentially this means members of parliament are appointed by party functionaries. That cannot be right.
In the German system, if you win your local constituency then you get a seat in parliament. Basically, the parties get a number of seats according to the vote split, and then those who have won their constituency get "subtracted" from that total seat count. If there is anything left over for a party after subtracting their direct constituency wins, they can assign these seats freely to members of their party (who thus do not directly represent a constituency, but rather their share of party vote). Any disparity to the proportional party vote is removed by adjusting the total number of seats in parliament. So if a party is more successful at winning constituencies than at gaining party votes, it might not get enough seats due to the party vote to accommodate all its direct winners. In which case the number of total seats is increased until they can do that. (This means that other parties will get proportionally more seats to fill from their party rank and file.)
I should perhaps qualify that we have a "5% party vote or winning 3 constituencies" hurdle. So in theory it is possible to get into parliament with less than 5% of the party vote, by winning 3 constituencies with a party. In theory it is also possible that someone wins a constituency but doesn't get into parliament, because he is not in a party that would have won at least 2 further seats elsewhere (or enough of the popular vote). But these are largely theoretical possibilities in Germany. And yes, I do think that these particular kind of "disenfranchisements" are a good idea. It is bad to disregard votes, sure, but it is even worse to have an overall dysfunctional voting system. There needs to be some control against excessive splintering into minuscule political entities, or the country becomes de facto ungovernable.
The upshot of all this is that yes, in a system based on the proportional party vote, parties are more important. But that does not mean all connection to the local level must be lost. I think the German system is fairly balanced concerning that.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
As for the 5% threshhold: it's a purely arbitrary rule that can't be justified on any principled basis.
The precise number of 5% is somewhat arbitrary, it could be 6% or 4%. But of course this can be justified on a principled basis. It protects the voting system against fracturing into a mess of minuscule parties that make the country ungovernable because nobody can recruit a stable majority. This has to be balanced against de facto "throwing away" votes. It is this balance which means that neither a 10% nor a 0.1% hurdle would make sense: the former would ignore too many votes, the latter would not protect enough against fracturing.
And not only is this principle sound, I have actually demonstrated above the power of this approach in practice, by looking at the current UK election! Without such a hurdle, you would be heading for re-elections, with it a coalition government is possible. See above.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
It sounds the same as the system we have in New Zealand. My view is that it is undemocratic for anyone to be in parliament who has not been elected by individuals. This comes from the simple proposition that it is for the electorate to decide which persons are to govern them. Not anyone else.
We also have a similar rule regarding seats. There is a 4% threshhold for parties who hold no constituencies. Parties that do, are represented in proportion to their vote even if it is below 4%. The rule is not just arbitrary but it leads leads to all manner of technicalities by which the system may be gamed.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
As for the 5% threshhold: it's a purely arbitrary rule that can't be justified on any principled basis.
The precise number of 5% is somewhat arbitrary, it could be 6% or 4%. But of course this can be justified on a principled basis. It protects the voting system against fracturing into a mess of minuscule parties that make the country ungovernable because nobody can recruit a stable majority. This has to be balanced against de facto "throwing away" votes. It is this balance which means that neither a 10% nor a 0.1% hurdle would make sense: the former would ignore too many votes, the latter would not protect enough against fracturing.
That sounds like a justification on pragmatism rather than principle. In any event, it sounds extremely unlikely that a country would suffer from that problem for any length of time, and even if it did, it would find ways of coping. It is more often justified as a way of excluding extremist parties (which strikes me as a somewhat problematic position to take).
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Clegg giving a surprisingly good resignation speech at the moment.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I don't think it's possible for such a thing as a bad resignation speech from Nick Clegg. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Just one more seat for a tory overall majoriy. Should come in the next half an hour.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
There's going to be a lot of pressure on the SNP now - I hope they manage to stand up to their anti-austerity promises.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Just reading the Paul Mason blog, very perceptive about Labour's bankrupcy of ideas. They have nothing to offer affluent people in the south east, their attempted vaguely left unionism in Scotland was pulverized, and they hang on in the old industrial areas. Probably worst of all, they seem intellectually emptied out, mouthing old Blairite truisms, which are now stale, and acting as a parrot to the Tories. Is there any point to Labour?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
My view is that it is undemocratic for anyone to be in parliament who has not been elected by individuals.
And my view is that a system where a party can gain 1.4% of the popular vote but lose 26 seats in parliament, as Labour did in this UK election, is undemocratic. The systematic trashing of huge numbers of votes to uphold absolute individual representation is nonsense. In particular so in modern times, where people are at least as aware of party leaders and party politics as they are of what their individual MP might be doing. In fact, I would posit that it is much easier to get a halfway unbiased idea about the former than about the latter.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That sounds like a justification on pragmatism rather than principle. In any event, it sounds extremely unlikely that a country would suffer from that problem for any length of time, and even if it did, it would find ways of coping. It is more often justified as a way of excluding extremist parties (which strikes me as a somewhat problematic position to take).
Of course it is a pragmatic justification. All politics is pragmatic anyhow. Electing a representative to parliament is a pragmatic way of dealing with the organisational problems that direct democracy has. Democracy is a pragmatic way of dealing with the problem of finding an optimal solution among conflicting individual interests. Etc.
The damping of extremist excess is a natural consequence of a hurdle system, given that extremism by definition is a small minority position. The problem is that an extremist party could gain undue influence if their small percentage is what one side needs to gain majority. But that really is just one particular example for the wider problem of destabilising governance through fracturing into small parties. Here the "steady" party politics of the big party would get disrupted by the need to accommodate the extremist party, so this is a kind of destabilising governance.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The German system has shown way more "biodiversity" than the UK system.
When was the last time Germany wasn't governed by either the Christian Democratic Union or the Social Democratic Party of Germany? Yes, sometimes with coalition partners, but basically it's a two party state. The same as the UK, really.
[deleted a section better suited to Hell, where I'm just off too]
[ 08. May 2015, 11:10: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Is there any point to any of the parties right now, other than the SNP? The rest are all spin?
I have actually found myself getting nostalgic for John Major and his soapbox.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
They will have to reimagine themselves as an opposiion, instead of saying we'll keep these tory polies and here is a shiny, slightly different bauble.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Watching Ed Milliband's concession speech now.
[ 08. May 2015, 11:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Watching Ed Milliband's conscession speech now.
Not for the first time, I find him a bit formulaic and somehow not quite getting it across...
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
He's a gonner too then - hat trick for Cameron
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Watching Ed Milliband's conscession speech now.
Not for the first time, I find him a bit formulaic and somehow not quite getting it across...
See, I thought he was coming across well.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
It is embarassing, Clegg's speech was at lot better. FFS at this moment you what to waffle on about millifandom, and dumb platitudes.
Far too much about "I" and bugger all about the country.
[ 08. May 2015, 11:19: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
He clapped himself !
Jesus wept.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Aghast as I am that Call Me Dave is likely to be with us for another five years, I do most sincerely hope that Clegg, Feckless Reckless The Kipper, and Farrago disappear altogether (the fact that Farrago didn't even get into Parliament is proof that God loves us).
OTOH, I rejoice mightily that The Blessed Caroline Lucas retained Brighton Pavilion with a good majority, and that Scotland's lion did indeed roar!
YMMV, of course........
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They will have to reimagine themselves as an opposiion, instead of saying we'll keep these tory polies and here is a shiny, slightly different bauble.
It's going to be tough; Blair's coalition between the affluent south and the old industrial areas has been torn to shreds. It's into the wilderness now, but I'm not sure where any new ideas are coming from. Blair's dilute Toryism seems pointless, and Labour dare not actually consider left-wing ideas. I guess it will be some form of Keynesianism, good luck with that, since the Tories are quite happy with pouring quantitative money in, and big projects in the south east. What else is there?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
And that result is in, Conservative victory - they have made 326.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And that result is in, Conservative victory - they have made 326.
TBH, I think of it less of a Tory victory than a Labour cockup. They've done an appalling job over the last five years in failing to show up the human suffering caused by the Tories' callous, near-sociopathic policies.
An Cameron has a hat-trick. All three scalps - Farage, Clegg, Miliband.
[ 08. May 2015, 11:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
I would love it if The Queen would say, "Oh. You again."
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And my view is that a system where a party can gain 1.4% of the popular vote but lose 26 seats in parliament, as Labour did in this UK election, is undemocratic.
It is not completely obvious that in a national government, being preferred by a plurality of the people is better than being tolerated by a majority of the people. It is not obvious that strict numerical democracy is what we actually want.
Having said that, this election really isn't unusual. This time around, the Conservatives achieved (currently) 50.2% of the seats with 36.8% of the votes, so they had only 73.4% of the vote that they would have needed under strict PR to get that many seats. Labour's ratio was 85.7%, so you can see that FPTP has favoured the Conservatives this time. If you look at averages going back to 1974, you find the opposite effect - the Tories score 88.5% vs 78.0% for Labour. This is mostly dominated by the Blair years, when Labour did very much better out of FPTP than the Tories. This is well known - FPTP usually has the effect of magnifiying the margin of victory.
The 2010 election was comparatively unusual in that Labour and the Tories had a smiliar ratio of votes to seats.
Posted by marzipan (# 9442) on
:
did anyone else see this guy ?
Cross-stitch of the election results (it's pretty interesting to see how the number of constituencies changes the shape of the map too - lots of Labour's seats are small in area in cities etc.
Story on BBC
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And my view is that a system where a party can gain 1.4% of the popular vote but lose 26 seats in parliament, as Labour did in this UK election, is undemocratic.
It is not completely obvious that in a national government, being preferred by a plurality of the people is better than being tolerated by a majority of the people. It is not obvious that strict numerical democracy is what we actually want.
I would actually agree with that. I could imagine a democratic system more tailored towards "minimising the overall displeasure" rather than "maximising the realisation of absolute preference". But I don't see FPTP delivering that either. Some kind of ranked voting system would perhaps do that, and if well-designed, I may even prefer this kind of system.
But I don't see how that changes that the current UK system really doesn't seem very democratic in its practical outcomes.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
... [the BBC] is not as right-wing as the print press, but it's not left-wing - look at ... how it covered the Scottish Independence Referendum a few months ago.
It wasn't only the Right that wanted a "no" vote in the Scottish referendum though - remember Gordon Brown making impassioned speeches in the last few days of the campaign encouraging people to vote "no"?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, when the constituency boundary reforms take place (and not before time) the prospect of a future Labour majority will recede further. With current boundaries, Labour have an inbuilt bias in their favour since they have always done better in the smaller urban constituencies. Once constituency sizes are evened up, this advantage will disappear. And that is going to happen, sooner or later, in the next government.
I think Labour are now in long term trouble and the Lib Dems may never recover.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I don't see FPTP delivering that either.
No, it doesn't.
Party lists are completely evil, though. The people absolutely have to be able to vote out a particular person, and not keep getting him anyway because he's top of his party's list.
If you want PR, you have to do it with large multi-member constituencies, and we can argue about the voting algorithm.
You'll still get boundary effects, though - there will be a party who keeps just failing to get an additional seat, and they will get fewer seats than that "should", but I think these should usually be fairly small. We don't need to achieve mathematical perfection - if 50.5% of the people vote one way and 49.5% vote the other way, the result is close enough that there's nothing much wrong with selecting a winner at random.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Karl: quote:
And Cameron has a hat-trick. All three scalps - Farage, Clegg, Miliband.
I daresay that's how he thinks of it, too.
Still... at least Farrago didn't get in.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Hybrid system works well, I think. That's what we have over here. You still vote for a particular candidate who represents a certain area.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Karl: quote:
And Cameron has a hat-trick. All three scalps - Farage, Clegg, Miliband.
I daresay that's how he thinks of it, too.
Still... at least Farrago didn't get in.
Aye, cloud, silver lining. And that Reckless bloke is out on his ear as well. I mean, between him and the Tories it's "a plague on both your houses" from me, but still vaguely satisfying.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
IMO Labour made ( and still makes) the error of claiming to be for working class people. That is divisive. Many 'middle class' people also work! Engaging in verbal class warfare limits the appeal of any party which must win seats across all 'classes' to be elected.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
IMO Labour made ( and still makes) the error of claiming to be for working class people. That is divisive. Many 'middle class' people also work! Engaging in verbal class warfare limits the appeal of any party which must win seats across all 'classes' to be elected.
The thing is though they're not. New Labour is just another Thatcherite, neo-liberal, party. I suppose it's academic as I don't live in the England (though I was brought up there), but old Labour I could have voted for. They betrayed their roots.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The Guardian's current count has SNP with 1.4m votes which gets them 55 seats, and UKIP with 3.2m votes, which gets them 1 seat.
Wow. I mean, I know why it happens, but still, wow.
Oh not this again.
1.4m votes in 59 seats, versus 3.2m votes in close to 650 seats.
Thanks for the lesson, professor. As I said, I know why it happens.
But, still, wow.
But the total figure is completely meaningless! Why are you quoting it?
The figure is the number of people who voted for a UKIP candidate. That's its meaning. Why are you behaving as though my surprise was some sort of ghastly social faux pax?
Because you didn't quote one figure, you quoted two and compared them, and the two figures are simply not comparable in any meaningful fashion. It is utterly pointless to compare a vote across multiple countries with a vote in 1 country, because the number of people who were even eligible to vote for SNP is so much smaller than the voter pool for UKIP. If you want a sensible comparison to UKIP, use the Lib Dems.
[ 08. May 2015, 13:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Only 1 result left to come in - St Ives and the Isles of Scilly - expected to be a Conservative win.
I had a bet with a friend on the result and have won £150
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
IMO Labour made ( and still makes) the error of claiming to be for working class people. That is divisive. Many 'middle class' people also work! Engaging in verbal class warfare limits the appeal of any party which must win seats across all 'classes' to be elected.
The thing is though they're not. New Labour is just another Thatcherite, neo-liberal, party. I suppose it's academic as I don't live in the England (though I was brought up there), but old Labour I could have voted for. They betrayed their roots.
Pretty much right. They also accepted certain Tory narratives, or myths, particularly that Labour had crashed the economy, and that austerity would make the economy grow. The Tories didn't even stick to the second one, as they could see it was choking growth. But Labour didn't have the bottle, and tried to be better Tories than the Tories. What a farce.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
I hope no one is actually thinking Red Ed lost because he wasn't red enough.
Actually, never mind. Yes, the way for Labour to win is to fly that red flag high!
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[..] With current boundaries, Labour have an inbuilt bias in their favour since they have always done better in the smaller urban constituencies.
Historically, that sounds right. It may still be right, and yet I wonder. My maths could be wrong, but this is what it looks like (based on current BBC numbers):-
Labour got 232 seats from 9,344,328 votes. This seems to mean that it, on average, it took 40,277 votes to elect one Labour MP. The Conservatives got 331 seats from 11,334,920 votes. On average, it took 34,244 votes to elect one Conservative MP. Unless I'm missing something, it looks like first past the post favoured the Conservatives this time - am I missing something?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think Labour are now in long term trouble and the Lib Dems may never recover.
I think you're probably right.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
I thought Jim Murphy's speech was very good. Certainly better than Ed's...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Ken called it for the Lib Dems five years ago. To be honest, I'm surprised anyone ever thought anything different was going to happen. It appears Nick Clegg fundamentally failed to appreciate how much of the Lib Dem vote was based on the premise that they'd keep the Tories out.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I hope no one is actually thinking Red Ed lost because he wasn't red enough.
Actually, never mind. Yes, the way for Labour to win is to fly that red flag high!
Well, Blair did a clever coalition between the affluent south in England, and the old industrial areas, including Scotland. Both have crashed and burned for Labour now, but they are left with the neo-liberal rhetoric, which convinces no-one. If you want Tories, why settle for ersatz ones? It's left Labour without meaning or aims, whether this is recoverable, dunno. It might depend on whether SNP buy into the austerity myth.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Alwyn
I think that shows the difference between a proportional representation system and a constituency (first past the post) system. Labour got one seat in Scotland but a lot more than average votes per seat in Scotland. And UKIP got 1 seat in England despite getting close on 4 million votes overall.
I think the boundary revisions are equivalent to Labour losing around 15 seats, but they will make for fairer constituency sizes. I like the fact that we do that kind of bipartisan (well, pretty bipartisan) equitable revision in the UK. If you don't do that, you get the kind of vile gerrymandered district sizing and location characteristic of the current arrangements for seats in the US Congress. We really don't want that in the UK.
[ 08. May 2015, 15:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I hope no one is actually thinking Red Ed lost because he wasn't red enough.
Well, yes.
Compare and contrast: the SNP's strong anti-Tory, anti-austerity message, Labour's austerity-lite, this-time-we-won't-fuck-up humility. How did that go for 'Red' Ed?
I didn't vote Labour because they had very little to say to me.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Labour are Tory-lite really. What is the point of that?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Indeed. A question I asked of a Labour party activist friend over on F***Book last night: if Labour aren't the party of the left, what are they for?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Indeed. A question I asked of a Labour party activist friend over on F***Book last night: if Labour aren't the party of the left, what are they for?
Well, we can do neo-liberalism with compassion!
I can remember Callaghan bellowing at the Labour party conference, 'you can't spend your way out of a recession'. Thus, they dumped Keynes and embraced neo-liberalism, and they wonder why they have no clear identity. That was 1976, by the way, before Thatcher.
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
More news to make us all happy - the BNP got only 1,667 votes. That is much less than the Monster Raving Loony and Cannabis is Safer Than Alcohol Parties.
The Class War Party did worse, however.
What an odd story the BNP is.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
The racists all vote UKIP now.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The racists all vote UKIP now.
This is true. The racist Party de jour, Britian First, has been telling its knuckle-dragging followers to do just that.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Indeed. A question I asked of a Labour party activist friend over on F***Book last night: if Labour aren't the party of the left, what are they for?
Well, we can do neo-liberalism with compassion!
I can remember Callaghan bellowing at the Labour party conference, 'you can't spend your way out of a recession'. Thus, they dumped Keynes and embraced neo-liberalism, and they wonder why they have no clear identity. That was 1976, by the way, before Thatcher.
True, but 1976 is probably a poor example, as that was a debt crisis, i.e. although the national debt as a % of GDP was lower than now, the government lost confidence of the markets that they had a credible plan for repaying the debt. There is no point in borrowing if you need to pay 20% p.a. to service the debt. It's ironic as the (bond) markets would probably have been prepared to countenance a programme involving less austerity this time round. However it would be touch and go - Keynes also said that you should be paying off the debt in the good times in order to create the stimulus in the bad times, and that's the bit that's rather been forgotten of late.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Earlier, Barnabas62 wrote:- quote:
I think Labour are now in long term trouble and the Lib Dems may never recover.
I agree with that. The collapse of the left and the rise of the far-right is a long story, but an increasing number of commentators, from left and right, seem to be agreeing increasingly on why. It's not just a UK thing of course.
But the nu-labour pact represented an abandonment of what the left had traditionally focused on, i.e. a better deal for the workers, and replaced it with a programme owing more to American politics, with an indecent love of Big Money and a string of must-do projects identified in the rise of identity politics. The former led to 2008, and the latter means little to most working people. Ask them* and you would likely get agreement to A, disagreement with B, and a qualified answer to C. After a while it always was going to lead to "got bored, walked away".
And of course some walked into the arms of the far right.
So yes, if labour is going to survive, it really does need to be more left-wing, in the traditional understanding of the phrase. Though in doing so it needs to bear in mind why there was a crisis in the first place that led to the rise of nu-labour.
Though if we do cravenly all go down the American way (dear Lord please no), then the Liberals could become culture wars liberals, though I think that would more depend on the Conservatives first turning into neocons or teaparty-type loons.
(* I'm now retired, otherwise it would be "us")
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
Did anyone hear the reversing vehicle sound during Cameron's victory speech outside number 10? It was a subliminal message/spell to cause as much depression as possible, I tell you (probably).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The dominant narratives for 40 years have been to the right, e.g. privatization, deregulation, wage control, high bonuses, flexible working. Labour bought into them, and are now paralysed by them, so they appeal neither to workers nor the affluent middle class. Is the left extinct? Well no, but I don't think Labour will be its vehicle.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
I am rather flabbergasted at the people saying that Labour needs to move farther leftwards. That is pretty much the same thing the insane Tea Party people say about the Republicans in the U.S. The last time Labour had a non-Blairite majority government was what? 1966 under Harold Wilson? Miliband was a return to Old Labour, and the result is that the Tories actually gained seats as a sitting government? Old Labour has spent nearly fifty years now in the wilderness. I fail to see what people believe has changed that would make a more left-leaning Labour Party successful.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Miliband tipped his hat in the direction of a couple of populist ideas but the notion that he was Old Labour or in some meaningful way "red" is utterly fallacious. It's a measure of how pernicious our media is that this view has managed to gain a foothold in spite of the evidence. He wouldn't even countenance raising income tax, for goodness sake, never mind repealing anti-union legislation. Labour problem wasn't actually about too left or too right, it was about a lack of convincing vision for how to do things differently. All they were promising was to do the same as the tories, but better, and that's never going to inspire. It's noticeable that there were marginals where Labour put up genuinely radical candidates, and there's no indication they did any worse than the bland neo-liberals.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
So just what is so wrong about the left? And so right about the right? (And why the heck did the flipping French Revolutionary government sit that way round? Imagine if the policies we think of as on the right didn't come attached to a word that implies they are correct.) People keep on going on about the left as though it is totally obvious and self explanatory that it is wrong, and never provide a list about just what it is they feel is so transparent.
What is wrong about moving towards a society that takes care of all its members, who are all regarded as valuable parts of the body politic, who are not measured by the amounts they can slip into the pockets of a particular party? (And why do those donors have to do it via expensive functions? Why can't they put their money where their mouths are without getting goodies back at the time, let alone in legislation later?)
What is wrong about supporting a society that makes health and education available to all, regardless of income? What is wrong about a society that remembers that "welfare" is a public good, a word that derives form being well, and arranges it without being mean and sneering about those who need it? What is wrong about wanting a society that helps the disabled to live lives more abundantly without having to jump impossible hurdles to prove their need? What is wrong with wanting a society which does not order people's lives so that they die early? Or, if it has, inadvertently, done that, recognises its mistake and corrects it in short order.
What is wrong about wanting a society that rewards work, recognising that the labourer is worthy of the hire, deserving of being able to live on their wage, and to live well, not in grudging dearth. Not one in which the same workers (I write of the support staff in schools here, cleaners, cooks) do the same jobs year after year, but the company that employs them is magically changed regularly, just before they become qualified for sickness benefit, redundancy rights and holiday pay.
When our masters were young, and they trashed people's livelihoods for fun, they put money down in an attempt to compensate for the harm they did. Now they have put away childish things, they do the first and think there is no need for the second.
But what do I know? I live in a state where people want the opposite, whatever public goods come in a right wing package.
I do enjoy a good rant, even if it is utterly, utterly pointless. I'm off to find my St John's Wort tablets.
[ 08. May 2015, 17:42: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Oh yes, and I forgot about asking what is wrong about wanting a society in which those who are wronged can access the law, whether in their private lives, or their working lives, where those ill treated in the workplace have some means of restitution, either through tribunals or the unions? There was a need for those, remember? Even against nice Quaker companies like Bryant and May and their girls with phossy jaw.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I fail to see what people believe has changed that would make a more left-leaning Labour Party successful.
The success of the SNP? That's a pretty big signpost right there...
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
And most people voting green, some ex lib dems and some ukip supporters would go for a left leaning party.
One way of addressing the concerns of the impact of immigration on low paid job terms and conditions, for example, is strong unionisation.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Nothing wrong with the left, Penny S. My point was simply that Miliband was being attacked for something that wasn't true, and you can be certain the people doing the attacking thought it was bad.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Wot abart the workers? Red Ken on Andrew Neil said it was Blair's fault for not creating working class jobs (miners?!) and social housing.
(And thank you, thank you for drawing a veil over my "it's". Love certainly covers much sin.)
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I hope no one is actually thinking Red Ed lost because he wasn't red enough.
Actually, never mind. Yes, the way for Labour to win is to fly that red flag high!
Not saying they should be more left, just asking whether you think they would gain more votes by being even closer to the Tory position - as in the Lib Dems. The electorate seemed to think that if a party was closish to the Tories, they might as well vote for the Tories.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I hope no one is actually thinking Red Ed lost because he wasn't red enough.
Actually, never mind. Yes, the way for Labour to win is to fly that red flag high!
Well, Blair did a clever coalition between the affluent south in England, and the old industrial areas, including Scotland. Both have crashed and burned for Labour now, but they are left with the neo-liberal rhetoric, which convinces no-one. If you want Tories, why settle for ersatz ones? It's left Labour without meaning or aims, whether this is recoverable, dunno. It might depend on whether SNP buy into the austerity myth.
Well yes - that was a totally cynical ploy to gain as many votes as possible purely to gain power. It totally lost the plot in that the raison d'etre of gaining power is to apply the policies you truly believe in - replacing it with the gaining of political power for its own sake. The end result 10 years on is that regardless of the integrity of individual labour members - which I'm sure there is lots of - the party and the policy machine that comes with it has sold its soul to a compromise that the voters instinctively recognise as being unauthentic. So to call the original change "Machiavellian" is a parody of Machiavelli - who would not have made that appaling misunderstanding of the difference between tactics and strategy, or means vs end.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
As for the voters as a whole, I find it appalling how most of the UK appears to swallow media propoganda hook line and sinker and fail to see any depth behind the past 5 years of Tory government. That a party can do so much to apply austerity to the lower incomes and fail to rein in multinational and corporate tax evasion is a pretty damning indication that the old boy network is looking after its own in style. The old British political tradition of paying lip service and then just sidelining anything they don't care about - e.g. prisons, treatment of immigrants, environment is alive and visible if one simply asks a few questions rather than accepting the bland pacifying press statements. That a few unnamed senior MPs stood by certain miscellaneous characters in the phone tapping scandal and that the cases have somehow collapsed and almost everyone except a few sacrificial pawns are off scott free - is a telling sign that power and favour is for sale on an unprecedented scale. Well, maybe not unprecedented, but it's been a while since the Tudors were on the throne.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
If the opinion polls over the last 2 years had been accurate, would Labour have realised that their safety first "35 percent strategy" was not going to cut it and actually adopted some policies that were not just tweaks of Blairism?
The press would have crucified Ed (if he had remained as leader), but they crucified him anyway so what the heck...
In the event, the polls continued to whisper "all is well" even as the ship hit the rocks.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The issue underneath the issue is the subliminal message that:
"Left Wing = economical naivety".
A moment's reflection should persuade anyone that the global economic crisis was not created by left wing values, but by short sighted greed supported by reckless banking. Bankers are not noted for their left wing policies so far as I can see.
Yet the mud sticks.
Oh, sure, that's an over-simplification. As is the assertion that the cost of reckless banking has been met, largely, by those who were poor to start with. I think privations imposed by "sound government" have pretty well assured that inequity. A kind of reverse Robin-Hood spirit is in the air.
This is one of those occasions where I really miss a good bullshit-clearing fulmination by the late, much lamented, ken.
Will "left wing naivety" ever come back into fashion? Maybe it will in time? I hear the Orwellian whisper of Animal Farm's Benjamin the donkey. "Donkeys live a long time. None of you has ever seen a dead donkey".
But it's going to take a while.
[ 08. May 2015, 19:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
ISTM, B62, that one of the failures of the Labour campaign was the failure to tackle that head-on. Why? This was the period that the Conservatives were whining about over-regulation of the financial sector. Labour could have had them by the short and curlies if they wanted.
Not an original observation I know, but it bears repeating again.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Nothing wrong with the left, Penny S. My point was simply that Miliband was being attacked for something that wasn't true, and you can be certain the people doing the attacking thought it was bad.
It wasn't your comment that drew my fire! I took so long writing it that you slipped in between what I was commenting on and my rant.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Question - is it these particular Lib-Dems that are dead, or is it the idea of a party between the two traditional ones that is dead.
Cause somebody is going to eventually beat the current ruling party - it always happens. And the way people are going on about it on here, you'd think that Labour is repurposing that tombstone.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Being a long-time Lib Dem voter and - from a decade ago - party member I have followed the party's fortunes closely. Needless to say I am dismayed by what has happened over the last five years. While I expected a vote share of something like 8%, I did not expect a reduction to 8 seats.
My thoughts on why their vote share unravelled is as follows. Some of what I say will probably be a bit out of touch due to my absence, but bear with me.
1. Support switching to Labour
There is a tendency to believe that Lib Dem support is entirely tactical, and that the majority of its voters' "real" support is for Labour, and in a few cases the Tories. It is true that in 1997 the Lib Dems benefitted from an anti-Tory vote, and were able to squeeze the Labour vote in the constituencies where they finished first or second. However, this is far from the whole story. You do not consistently poll close to 20% in election after election purely on tactical voting, especially when your candidates are generally finishing third and liable to have their own vote share squeezed. Speaking for myself, my preference was to vote for a party whose philosophical outlook was liberal and whose policies were designed accordingly, and I think there are millions like me.
However, in this election I really had to hold my nose very tightly as I voted. I voted Lib Dem chiefly because I liked my incumbent MP (who has now lost his seat) but also because the alternative was a Tory. However, I did so with no enthusiasm. Had Labour made a stronger showing, I'd probaby have lent my vote to them (again, without enthusiasm). The party has flirted with a right-wing version of liberalism, which I worry collapses into a sort of tea-party libertarianism.
2. Support switching to UKIP.
Yes, really. The Tory vote held up in the south west, the UKIP vote hugely increased, and Labour's low vote share increased somewhat. The best explanation is poorer voters who previously backed the Lib Dems shifting to UKIP and Labour. I note also that UKIP are somewhat like the Lib Dems in that they purport to be for the little people.
3. Loss of protest party vote.
By being in government, they were always going to lose this. I expect the Greens, the SNP and to a lesser extent UKIP were the beneficiaries.
4. Cock-ups and naivety
Here in NZ, coalition governments are normal. Everyone knows how they work, and the country got used to them pretty quickly. In order to do that, some of the older conventions were simply ditched because they clearly didn't fit, and observing them looked contrived. The most obvious one of these is ministerial disagreement. It is quite normal for ministers from one party to have public disagreements with those from another. This is all quite normal. It is also normal for minor parties in a coalition to name their price and stick to it. The Lib Dems did neither. They behaved like a minor party who had been invited into government. Once they were in government, they allowed themselves to be absolutely stitched up. They were too spineless even to stick to their personal commitment to oppose tuition fees. I think going into coalition was the responsible thing to do given the circumstances, but they should have behaved like a party who had just captured a vote share fully two thirds of that of the Tories and driven a much, much harder bargain accordingly. They should have insisted on a switch to a system other than AV, and they should not have done more to counter the belief that their desire for electoral reform was self-serving (AV probably wouldn't have helped them anyway).
5. There are lots of others but I'll stop here.
The last 5 years have been an utter disaster for the Lib Dems. In terms of vote, this is their worst result since the Liberals in 1966. In terms of seats, it is their worst result since 1959. Most of the party's big hitters have been decapitated, their representation at municipal level decimated, and the membership has (I believe) more than halved. Given that the party is more reliant on old-fashioned activism than Labour or the Tories, and now has less members than UKIP or the Greens, they might have terminally lost their ability to get their vote out and put quality candidates up for election. The only upside is that remaining members will be the hard core.
However, I also worry that perhaps the voting public in general are less interested in liberalism than they used to be, and that conservatism is the order of the day. This election produced a very right wing/conservative result, in England at least. While I do see the possiblity of the Lib Dems being replaced by the Greens on the left and UKIP on the right, I don't see either party replicating policies on the same philosophical basis as the Lib Dems.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
The millions who didn't vote Conservative or UKIP must and will find a political expression. Possibly in a regrouping of Labour, Libdems and Greens in a Progressive Alliance. All governments fail sooner or later, from a combination of internal complacency, dissent and scandal, and the rise of a coherent, ungrubby alternative.
It's never fun to be in the stooping and building with worn-out tools part of the cycle, but it's what we have to do.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'd love to know how the individual vote transfers worked out. Scotland is clear - a large chunk of the leftist vote moved from Labour and the Lib Dems to the SNP.
In the rest of the UK, the numbers show the Conservatives more or less holding steady (small gain), and a transfer of most of the LD vote to UKIP, Labour and the Greens. The transfer from LD to Lab / Green would seem to be the left-wing end of the Lib Dem support abandoning the party of collaboration but a 10% transfer from Lib Dem to UKIP doesn't make much sense.
Is it a transfer from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives, and a simultaneous transfer from the Tories to UKIP, or did all the LD voters go Labour, and the UKIP support is mostly anti-immigrant sentiment in "white van man".
Essentially, who are the UKIP voters? They got almost twice as many votes as the Lib Dems across England, despite only maintaining the one MP. I suspect that the idea of summing the Conservative and UKIP vote and calling it a roughly 50% vote for the right of centre is probably not an accurate picture of what was really going on.
According to a retired guy I know and met this morning, who votes in one of the Essex constituencies that UKIP hoped to take, all the natural Labour voters he knew voted UKIP because they wouldn't vote Tory, but couldn't stomach voting for Ed Milliband and Ed Balls, who have not come over as competent.
Realistically, the LibDems would possibly have some credibility if they'd pulled out of the Coalition the first time they'd been stitched up, rather than rolling over, and Labour have looked unelectable for years. So this was pretty inevitable.
(I've seen Ed Balls on The Agenda live, and he was pretty unconvincing. Apparently Ed Milliband was positively embarrassing in his begging for votes from the audience, to the point he put people off who would have otherwise voted Labour)
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Realistically, the LibDems would possibly have some credibility if they'd pulled out of the Coalition the first time they'd been stitched up, rather than rolling over, and Labour have looked unelectable for years. So this was pretty inevitable.
Really? I think they would have looked as if they were stomping off and taking their ball with them. Their fate in this election was sealed when they signed up to that lopsided coalition agreement and decided to spend years pretending that they agreed with everything the Tories said and did, in the name of some stupid "constitutional convention".
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
My view is that it is undemocratic for anyone to be in parliament who has not been elected by individuals.
And my view is that a system where a party can gain 1.4% of the popular vote but lose 26 seats in parliament, as Labour did in this UK election, is undemocratic. The systematic trashing of huge numbers of votes to uphold absolute individual representation is nonsense.
This is a non-point which you make because, once again, you are assuming that democracy is inevitably about parties. My view is that it is about electing the individuals who govern us. While it makes sense for those individuals to organise themselves into political parties, the fact remains that government is carried on by real people who use their own minds and experiences to make decisions on behalf of those who have elected them. If this is not correct, then we ought to replace all members of parliament with a large computer.
There are all manner of electoral systems that allow voters to choose all those who will govern them: STV, AV, FPTP or direct election of heads of government. The system as used in places like Germany, NZ and Scotland subverts that principle, and to that extent they are less democratic than FPTP polities. I personally prefer AV or STV to FPTP as they allow voters more choice about how to vote and (in the latter case) who to vote for. However, I would certainly vote against a change to a system that removed voter choice as currently allowed by FPTP.
In any event, most electoral systems "systematically trash" the votes of those whose preferred candidate or slate of candidates does not win. Not many countries have party proportional governments. One side has to lose.
quote:
In particular so in modern times, where people are at least as aware of party leaders and party politics as they are of what their individual MP might be doing. In fact, I would posit that it is much easier to get a halfway unbiased idea about the former than about the latter.
If you are factually correct (and I don't think you are) this is as a result of party organisations strangling the independence of local MPs. This is a bad thing that reduces political 'biodiversity'. I really don't see why it is in any sense a good idea to enshrine this tendency in law.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
That sounds like a justification on pragmatism rather than principle. In any event, it sounds extremely unlikely that a country would suffer from that problem for any length of time, and even if it did, it would find ways of coping. It is more often justified as a way of excluding extremist parties (which strikes me as a somewhat problematic position to take).
Of course it is a pragmatic justification. All politics is pragmatic anyhow. Electing a representative to parliament is a pragmatic way of dealing with the organisational problems that direct democracy has. Democracy is a pragmatic way of dealing with the problem of finding an optimal solution among conflicting individual interests. Etc.
No. "Democracy" as currently understood is the principle that people choose who governs them. It is less about successful government than human rights.
I suppose you could argue that 'pragmatically' that's the best way to order society. But if so, everything in life is pragmatic, and the word loses its meaning.
quote:
The damping of extremist excess is a natural consequence of a hurdle system, given that extremism by definition is a small minority position. The problem is that an extremist party could gain undue influence if their small percentage is what one side needs to gain majority. But that really is just one particular example for the wider problem of destabilising governance through fracturing into small parties. Here the "steady" party politics of the big party would get disrupted by the need to accommodate the extremist party, so this is a kind of destabilising governance.
With the exception of Italy, this is really not a problem for mature democracies. In any event, if that's what the people choose, that's democracy. Once again, however, you are viewing the issue through the lens of "parties". If MPs squabble too much amongst themselves to form a stable administration, the appropriate solution is for the electorate to kick them all out and replace them with other MPs. Under a constituency-based system, this is simple. Under a system that is based on party vote share, it's just about impossible.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
ISTM, B62, that one of the failures of the Labour campaign was the failure to tackle that head-on. Why? This was the period that the Conservatives were whining about over-regulation of the financial sector. Labour could have had them by the short and curlies if they wanted.
Not an original observation I know, but it bears repeating again.
It puzzled me too. I think it was worth a try. But I never heard the argument made.
Interesting question on "Question Time" this evening. "Why did the electorate punish the Lib Dems for things the coalition got wrong and reward the Tories for things the coalition got right?"
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
I saw this before the election, which outlines the demographics of who was supporting which party in the UK. It might help answer the question of who the UKIP voters are.
And a little while back I came across an interesting discussion which proposed that the reason that UKIP is gaining votes from former supporters of both Labour and Conservative parties is that it is not about Left or Right but more about cultural values of cosmopolitan vs non-cosmopolitan. The rise of 'cosmopolitan' politics. I think they may be on to something.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Interesting question on "Question Time" this evening. "Why did the electorate punish the Lib Dems for things the coalition got wrong and reward the Tories for things the coalition got right?"
My 2p.
LD voters were largely horrified at what Clegg and Cameron did. Tory voters were largely supportive of what Clegg and Cameron did. One loses all his votes. The other keeps his.
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on
:
Elections are won from the middle of the political spectrum. Clinton knew it, Blair perfected it, and Cameron got it.
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are. Any party needs to have those people if it is to have power. If Labour doesn't head off into the middle ground, they'll spend many, many years acting as OfGov.
Those who think Blair was a waste of time as Labour PM. forget, or never knew, just how horrible the alternatives were (Michael Howard with 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?').
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
ISTM, B62, that one of the failures of the Labour campaign was the failure to tackle that head-on. Why? This was the period that the Conservatives were whining about over-regulation of the financial sector. Labour could have had them by the short and curlies if they wanted.
I don't think so. By making that point, Labour would have had to admit they stuffed up. They were the ones who made decisions on financial regulation, not the Tories.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Interesting question on "Question Time" this evening. "Why did the electorate punish the Lib Dems for things the coalition got wrong and reward the Tories for things the coalition got right?"
Because 2010 Tory voters liked what the Coalition did, and 2010 Lib Dem voters didn't.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Cod wrote:- quote:
I don't think so. By making that point, Labour would have had to admit they stuffed up. They were the ones who made decisions on financial regulation, not the Tories.
But the thing is that they did admit to inadequate financial regulation, at least twice! (And I have been out of the country for several weeks, so maybe more times than that). So the issue was already on the table, yet the obvious extension was never made.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are.
That, as it goes, is relatively straight forward.
Identifying where that centre ground lies (in terms of policies) is so much harder. Has it actually shifted rightwards?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
The problem is that the overton window shifts.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I hope no one is actually thinking Red Ed lost because he wasn't red enough.
Actually, never mind. Yes, the way for Labour to win is to fly that red flag high!
Not saying they should be more left, just asking whether you think they would gain more votes by being even closer to the Tory position - as in the Lib Dems. The electorate seemed to think that if a party was closish to the Tories, they might as well vote for the Tories.
Exactly. Labour has been mesmerized by Blair, understandably, who shifted them to the right. But that is not a universal recipe, to be applied year after year. I think Blair's coalition of interests was temporary, and to try to repeat it now is absurd.
But it leaves Labour in a void, and as a void. But I left the Labour party many years ago. They seem like an empty vessel to me.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I fail to see what people believe has changed that would make a more left-leaning Labour Party successful.
The success of the SNP? That's a pretty big signpost right there...
I do not believe that the SNP's success indicates a more left-leaning Labour Party would be more successful. Scotland has generally been more leftward-leaning than the Labour Party for decades now, if not longer. They continued to vote Labour because of historical and pragmatic reasons. The switch to the SNP did not have anything to do with the SNP suddenly being left of Labour. There have nearly always been parties left of Labour. The switch from Labour to the SNP in Scotland has far more to do with that country's internal politics regarding self determination, especially in reaction to the Cameron Government. Even if Labour had adopted a more explicit socialist platform, I seriously doubt that would have stopped them hemorrhaging seats in Scotland. And in any case, even if Labour had managed to hold on to its Scottish seats, that would not change the fact that the Tories just won a straight majority. Labour + SNP still comes out to a forty-three seat deficit to the Tories. Outside of Scotland, I see no evidence to suggest that a more socialist platform would have led to greater success, in fact, just the opposite, judging by this election, among others.
Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are.
That, as it goes, is relatively straight forward.
Identifying where that centre ground lies (in terms of policies) is so much harder. Has it actually shifted rightwards?
Again, the last time Labour had a non-Blairite majority government was 1966, which is nearly fifty years now. What makes you think a shift of the political center rightwards is necessary to explain this election's results?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It depends on what you call a socialist programme. It strikes me that Labour has become afraid to mention Keynesian solutions, for fear of contradicting neo-liberal doctrines. But these are the dominant myths of our age, although challenged by some economists. But then Osborne's secret is that he relaxed austerity, when it became obvious that it was choking growth.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The biggest problem with the austerity drive is that it was unbalanced. There might have been a good argument to say the country needed to tighten our belt and cut our expenditure. Might have been.
But, did we see the MPs voting for that belt tightening also vote for a cut in MP and ministerial salaries and expense allowances? Did we see leading Tories (in and outside of Parliament) take a cut in salaries received from sitting on the boards of assorted businesses and consultancies, allowing that cash flowing into their off-shore bank accounts instead be used to raise the salaries of the lowest paid workers and/or hire more staff on permanent (rather then slavery-like zero hour) contracts? Did we heck. Did we see cuts in big-budget projects like the totally useless and obscene replacement of Trident? Nope, we saw cuts in the health service, welfare, education - the things that ordinary people depend on.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Elections are won from the middle of the political spectrum. Clinton knew it, Blair perfected it, and Cameron got it.
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are. Any party needs to have those people if it is to have power. If Labour doesn't head off into the middle ground, they'll spend many, many years acting as OfGov.
Those who think Blair was a waste of time as Labour PM. forget, or never knew, just how horrible the alternatives were (Michael Howard with 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?').
And here's one of the problems. That's following, not leading.
I can understand that politicians are basically people who just want to be popular, but where's the vision in an approach that says we need to be where most people are?
You know what actually inspires people? A leader who doesn't find where most of the people are and say "oh good, you're all here", but who stands on a high point and says "I think we need to all come over HERE".
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Maybe, orfeo. But there is another factor in play. The one beautifully illustrated by "Yes Prime Minister".
quote:
Sir Humphrey: If you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous".
Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"?
Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"!
Were the Lib Dems courageous and public spirited in agreeing to be the minor partner in the coalition, given the financial instability in 2010? Or just short sighted? I suppose opinions will vary on that, but they have certainly paid for it.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Were the Lib Dems courageous and public spirited in agreeing to be the minor partner in the coalition, given the financial instability in 2010? Or just short sighted? I suppose opinions will vary on that, but they have certainly paid for it.
Was it worth throwing away an occasionally effective voice for decency and compromise in politics for whatever advantages might have been perceived in the policies of a political opponent?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Again, the last time Labour had a non-Blairite majority government was 1966, which is nearly fifty years now. What makes you think a shift of the political center rightwards is necessary to explain this election's results?
I don't. I think it's equally likely that the disenfranchisement of leftist voters by the historically left-leaning party is to blame.
This is not to say that rethinking what left-of-centre policies might look like in a post-industrial age isn't called for.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... I think it's equally likely that the disenfranchisement of leftist voters by the historically left-leaning party is to blame.
This is not to say that rethinking what left-of-centre policies might look like in a post-industrial age isn't called for.
I think those are good points. In this election Labour seemed to be simultaneously too supportive of austerity for lefties like me, and unsufficiently supportive of austerity for the centre/right voters they seemed to want to attract.
As I see it, the global financial crisis should have been a catalyst for a shift in politics similar to the shifts in Britain after the Second World War (the introduction of the NHS, the modern welfare state and so on) and after 1979 (privatisation, weak regulation and free-market economics). For me, Paul Krugman's recent article 'The austerity delusion' (link) is helpful food for thought.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I don't think Labour's problem was too-left (they weren't substantially to the left of the Blairites) or necessarily too-right (they didn't lose enough votes on the left to make a difference to the result). The problem was that they lacked a coherent narrative for government. They could have come out tub-thumping about the kind of "big society" the tories are building on the backs of the poor and vulnerable. How the savings made have been miniscule (2 billion a year on welfare) because the tories mismanaged the economy. Reminding people that Britain remains a wealthy country, and we are not faced with a choice of fixing the economy and helping those in need. The thing I really noticed from Labour was a lack of anger about the damage done by the tories. It seems like they have no sense of outrage, they just think they would be better "managers" of much the same thing (even if they would perhaps, in fact, do some things differently). That's why they lost so badly in Scotland. Their policies weren't all that different from the SNP's, what was different was that Sturgeon had a narrative and a vision that Labour lacked.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Alwyn, I think the major issue involved in the application of Keynesian economics is that governments have very rarely acted to reduce government spending and deficits in the "up" part of the cycle. That was always part of the theory. Keynes didn't abandon the notion of long term balance. It was the political process which added short term "you've never had it so good".
The argument about the austerity delusion looks reasonable, as far as it goes, but I wish it had been more balanced about government actions throughout the cycle. Being a reserve currency just ups the ante on confidence, so far as long term fiscal management is concerned. There is such a thing as reckless printing of money. And if confidence is lost in the will or ability of governments to manage economies - well, then you get Greece.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
History will hopefully judge Clegg's coalition sacrifice as an honourable one. Had he not put his party forward then presumably it would have forced a second General Election muddle.
Having that when the financial crash was 2 years old, with the possibility of Brown scraping through and Clegg propping it up, would have been as much use as the 70s Lib-Lab pact.
What 'astonished' me about the Election outcome was not so much the Tory victory but Mrs C's dress when Dave made his victory speech. Was the Lib yellow bib sown into the back her dress in anticipation of having to work with the Lib- dems again?
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And here's one of the problems. That's following, not leading.
I can understand that politicians are basically people who just want to be popular, but where's the vision in an approach that says we need to be where most people are?
You know what actually inspires people? A leader who doesn't find where most of the people are and say "oh good, you're all here", but who stands on a high point and says "I think we need to all come over HERE".
While I 100% agree on that, the trouble is I think politicians in the UK - especially those of the 2 main parties - are held in such low esteem that in the present culture that they'd be accused of being "out of touch" or "patronising" or whatever.
For example: both Labour and the Conservatives have spoken about immigration in broadly negative terms in this election campaign, mainly responding to public concerns about how immigration is taking away jobs, suppressing wages and negatively impacting on British culture (whatever that is). The Conservatives seem to have done this as a means to bash Labour ("Look what they've done by letting all these people in" sort of thing), while Labour seem to have done so by way of accepting the Tory narrative and apologising for it (even though Labour regularly introduced new rules and systems designed to put tighter curbs on the numbers of people coming into the country).
Now, against this backdrop, imagine if the leader of a political party tried to stand in part on a pro-immigration ticket. They might argue that immigration enriches our culture rather than destroying it, that immigrants do many jobs that the British people can't or won't do (the NHS and the catering sector would probably be destroyed without immigrants) and that studies show that immigrants actually contribute to the public purse and don't put pressure on infrastructure, housing etc. In short, if they stood up and said "We believe immigratgion is good for the UK, here's why, vote for us". They'd be accused of not listening to ordinary people, of not caring about the concerns of working people, even of deliberately trying to sell out British workers and destroy British culture. And they'd tank massively at the polls.
I say this as someone who is, more or less, pro-immigration and someone who would love to see leadership in the way you describe. But it would take someone truly spectacular to do that, someone who could change the debate while still showing that they weren't trying to impose but were still listening to people. And I honestly don't see anyone around at the moment who actually can do that.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[Labour] lacked a coherent narrative for government. ... Their policies weren't all that different from the SNP's, what was different was that Sturgeon had a narrative and a vision that Labour lacked.
I think that's quite accurate. The SNP have been riding a wave since the start of the referendum campaign, they've been presenting a vision of what Scotland could be. Since September that vision hasn't changed, what has changed is that they're saying "we can still do most of this, even within the union. We need to be released from some of the shackles of Westminster to do it". That vision of a vibrant, prosperous Scotland with all the benefits of a wealthy and civilised society (free education, health care, a functioning welfare state etc) is incredibly attractive.
I don't see an equivalent vision in the other main political parties. Cameron has offered us a "we'll continue with what we had been doing" message, Labour has offered a Tory-lite package of "we'll do what the Tories were doing, but not quite as ruthlessly", and the LibDems were saying "we won't make the same mistake as 5 years ago".
The only other party with some form of vision and fire were UKIP, even though their vision is some vile racist "British" exclusiveness anti-EU shite.
The Greens have a great vision of environmental sustainability. But, they're still struggling to communicate that they have a wider policy base, and when they get into discussions on economic policy they've so far failed to adequately communicate that they're working from a radically different economic theoretical basis, and that although it follows different rules that policy is still coherent and viable.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I felt that Milliband, if not Labour in general, did have a vision, but one which was so much bound up in intellectual political theory that it could not be communicated.
The Greens have a big vision but are let down by their lack of short-term practical solutions and policies.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only other party with some form of vision and fire were UKIP, even though their vision is some vile racist "British" exclusiveness anti-EU shite.
You're not really keen on them, are you?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
imagine if the leader of a political party tried to stand in part on a pro-immigration ticket. They might argue that immigration enriches our culture rather than destroying it, that immigrants do many jobs that the British people can't or won't do (the NHS and the catering sector would probably be destroyed without immigrants) and that studies show that immigrants actually contribute to the public purse and don't put pressure on infrastructure, housing etc. In short, if they stood up and said "We believe immigratgion is good for the UK, here's why, vote for us".
Interestingly, there was one party that has been consistently pro-immigration for many years. That's the Scottish Nationalist Party. It didn't seem to do them any harm at all.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only other party with some form of vision and fire were UKIP, even though their vision is some vile racist "British" exclusiveness anti-EU shite.
You're not really keen on them, are you?
Whatever gave you that impression?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The argument about the austerity delusion looks reasonable, as far as it goes, but I wish it had been more balanced about government actions throughout the cycle. Being a reserve currency just ups the ante on confidence, so far as long term fiscal management is concerned.
I think you are putting too much weight on government actions - firstly if we are in an era of much lower interest rates generally, then it makes sense that debts would also be at slightly higher levels, secondly for healthy economies debt is paid off by faster growth, rather than by running primary surpluses (the latter mainly being needed when a government isn't in control of its own fate). Thirdly, a lot of the increase in debt came about at the point at which the banking crisis kicked off - both in terms of short term funds needed to unblock the banking system, and automatic stabilisers like welfare kicking in for people who were unemployed.
Lastly - and most importantly - regardless of what you think of the regulation of banks (*) it's worth remembering that the reason things seemed so bleak back then was that we didn't know how big the hole in the banking sector actually was (and I'd argue that we still don't).
And to all those saying that it was all Labour's fault for de-regulating the banking sector. The Tories have yet to re-regulate the sector, and lets not forget that back in 2007 they were pushing for even *less* regulation:
'The government claims that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money'
'We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk'
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
I do not believe that the SNP's success indicates a more left-leaning Labour Party would be more successful. Scotland has generally been more leftward-leaning than the Labour Party for decades now, if not longer. They continued to vote Labour because of historical and pragmatic reasons.
I disagree. Scots continued to vote Labour because there was no other credible left-of-centre party to vote for.
quote:
The switch to the SNP did not have anything to do with the SNP suddenly being left of Labour. There have nearly always been parties left of Labour. The switch from Labour to the SNP in Scotland has far more to do with that country's internal politics regarding self determination, especially in reaction to the Cameron Government.
Again, I disagree. The SNP's success is due to the fact that, having gained practical experience in Holyrood, they have now become a credible left-of-centre party. They have brought in policies in Scotland that people like - free prescriptions, no University tuition fees, no Bedroom Tax, for example.
Other left-of-centre parties in Scotland never gained that sort of credibility, which is why they didn't take votes from Labour.
quote:
Even if Labour had adopted a more explicit socialist platform, I seriously doubt that would have stopped them hemorrhaging seats in Scotland.
Jim Murphy tried to adopt a more socialist platform, but was shat on from high by Westminster Labour. I think this is the point at which all hope for Labour in Scotland was lost.
quote:
And in any case, even if Labour had managed to hold on to its Scottish seats, that would not change the fact that the Tories just won a straight majority. Labour + SNP still comes out to a forty-three seat deficit to the Tories.
True.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It was a general criticism, chris, not pointed specifically at any particular post-war UK government. The fuel for the austerity delusion seems to me to come from lack of government austerity in the up part of the cycle. That was one of the factors which contributed to the credibility of Friedmann and his political "children".
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The fuel for the austerity delusion seems to me to come from lack of government austerity in the up part of the cycle.
Sure, but I'd argue that in the most recent cycle it was a seeming lack, rather than something actual.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Here is a smidgen of good news.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And here's one of the problems. That's following, not leading.
I can understand that politicians are basically people who just want to be popular, but where's the vision in an approach that says we need to be where most people are?
You know what actually inspires people? A leader who doesn't find where most of the people are and say "oh good, you're all here", but who stands on a high point and says "I think we need to all come over HERE".
While I 100% agree on that, the trouble is I think politicians in the UK - especially those of the 2 main parties - are held in such low esteem that in the present culture that they'd be accused of being "out of touch" or "patronising" or whatever.
For example: both Labour and the Conservatives have spoken about immigration in broadly negative terms in this election campaign, mainly responding to public concerns about how immigration is taking away jobs, suppressing wages and negatively impacting on British culture (whatever that is). The Conservatives seem to have done this as a means to bash Labour ("Look what they've done by letting all these people in" sort of thing), while Labour seem to have done so by way of accepting the Tory narrative and apologising for it (even though Labour regularly introduced new rules and systems designed to put tighter curbs on the numbers of people coming into the country).
Now, against this backdrop, imagine if the leader of a political party tried to stand in part on a pro-immigration ticket. They might argue that immigration enriches our culture rather than destroying it, that immigrants do many jobs that the British people can't or won't do (the NHS and the catering sector would probably be destroyed without immigrants) and that studies show that immigrants actually contribute to the public purse and don't put pressure on infrastructure, housing etc. In short, if they stood up and said "We believe immigratgion is good for the UK, here's why, vote for us". They'd be accused of not listening to ordinary people, of not caring about the concerns of working people, even of deliberately trying to sell out British workers and destroy British culture. And they'd tank massively at the polls.
I say this as someone who is, more or less, pro-immigration and someone who would love to see leadership in the way you describe. But it would take someone truly spectacular to do that, someone who could change the debate while still showing that they weren't trying to impose but were still listening to people. And I honestly don't see anyone around at the moment who actually can do that.
I know I'm cross-posting, but it's rather baffling that you've left out the SNP. I don't live in Scotland, but it's difficult to ignore their pro-immigration position. Both in the referendum debate and the election, they have made it clear that they welcome immigrants.
I suppose one might say that this is different, because of the passions around in Scottish politics, but the days seem long gone when Labour could arouse ardour like that. They come across as apologetically imitating the Tories, and working in and around Tory narratives - check out the notorious immigration mug.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a smidgen of good news.
Indeed, and it's good to see that the situation is improving across parties. The Lib Dems can perhaps be forgiven on account of having hardly anyone left.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The fuel for the austerity delusion seems to me to come from lack of government austerity in the up part of the cycle.
Sure, but I'd argue that in the most recent cycle it was a seeming lack, rather than something actual.
Fair point. Off on holiday to the Dales and further north for a couple of weeks. At the end of which time this thread seems likely to be history!
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
@Alan Creswell and quetzalcoatl:
Fair point about the SNP: mea culpa, I honestly wasn't aware of their pro-immigration stance - more power to their elbow!
That said, I do still wonder how that would go down in England; I'm fairly sure that it would be much less well received down here.
That said, is it not possible that at least some of that might be that the over-riding question in Scotland is its status in the UK, the after-effects of the independence referendum and what seems from here to be the growing sense of estrangement between Scotland and the rest of the UK? That's not to say people who voted SNP didn't care about the issues and only voted because of their stance on this question, but that that stance might have caused people to put such mis-givings aside and vote for them.
Perhaps in England it's different: the immigration issue seems to be caught up in all the debates about English "identity" etc.
I dunno... I just don't see an avowedly pro-immigration party in England doing that well, sadly.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a smidgen of good news.
I wonder if 30% is enough to stop the idiotic puerile heckling instead of proper debate at PMQ.
I have just read last weekend's interview in the Guardian with Dennis Skinner, who said he only stood this time because Cameron had three times in the House told him to resign, and then checked that he is still in. So he (Cameron) hasn't had that small victory.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
This is a non-point which you make because, once again, you are assuming that democracy is inevitably about parties. My view is that it is about electing the individuals who govern us. While it makes sense for those individuals to organise themselves into political parties, the fact remains that government is carried on by real people who use their own minds and experiences to make decisions on behalf of those who have elected them.
I don't know what century and what country you live in. It's definitely not the 21stC UK though. I have not spotted the slightest difference here to the "party politics" I have seen in Germany. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You are not being governed by "individuals", other than in the sense that obviously any human grouping is made up out of individuals. In fact, take this whole bloody thread. It is mostly a whine about how the Conservatives have won, in spite of being so mean. Oh, and how Labour has lost its socialist ways. And we wonder what the SNP will do, and how the Lib Dems will recover from being crushed etc. If individuals are being mentioned, then it is almost invariably the party leadership. We are for the most part not discussing the fate of this or that backbench MP. And we are not discussing either how say Mr Cameron did in his constituency in Oxford, nobody really cares about that, we are discussing his management at party level. You declared yourself to be a long time Lib Dem supporter, and gave a long analysis of the problems faced by that party. You didn't say that you are supporting some particular MP and didn't give us details on what challenges that individual faced.
The UK is quite simply another party-governed democracy, at least at the national level. Deal with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The system as used in places like Germany, NZ and Scotland subverts that principle, and to that extent they are less democratic than FPTP polities.
As mentioned, in the German system anybody elected in their constituency gets a seat in parliament (with a caveat concerning the "hurdle", which however practically never plays a role).
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In any event, most electoral systems "systematically trash" the votes of those whose preferred candidate or slate of candidates does not win. Not many countries have party proportional governments. One side has to lose.
You now have a 12-seat majority in Parliament - 51.2% of seats, Sinn Fein corrected - for a party that was supported by 36.9% of voters. Yes, in every system votes get "trashed" in the sense of some candidates losing. But that does not justify this kind of result.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
No. "Democracy" as currently understood is the principle that people choose who governs them. It is less about successful government than human rights.
Yes, and now try to turn your principle into reality. Invariably, you will have to make pragmatic choices to get some system that works in practice. Remember, this is about you critiquing the "hurdle" as not being principled. And my point is quite simply that the "hurdle" is a pragmatic measure, as there must be many pragmatic measures if one wants to turn the ideal of democracy into an actual reality. Pretty much all of the actual democracy you find yourself in is based on pragmatic choices people have made. For example, why precisely do you not expect to vote until in about five years from now? The election cycle is not part of your "democratic ideal", is it now? It is what you get when you try to turn your democratic ideal into reality, and have to face the fact that people cannot be expected to vote all the time, and that politicians need some stability of power to do their work. The election cycle is pragmatic solution for a practical problem in implementing the ideal of democracy. So is the "hurdle". You can of course critique the "hurdle" on various grounds, but not because it is not "principled". Very little in the actual political process is "principled".
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
With the exception of Italy, this is really not a problem for mature democracies.
The UK is a mature democracy. As shown above, in a proportional system without "hurdle", the UK would now most likely head for a re-election. With the "hurdle", there would most likely be a coalition government. This kind of measure works because political coalitions are the harder to form the more parties are involved. And the chance to construct a majority with fewer parties increases if there is a minimum seat size to them. You may not like the "hurdle" for other reasons, but it certainly does the job it is intended to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If MPs squabble too much amongst themselves to form a stable administration, the appropriate solution is for the electorate to kick them all out and replace them with other MPs. Under a constituency-based system, this is simple.
Frankly, this is so far removed from the political reality in the UK that I will not bother commenting on it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a smidgen of good news.
I wonder if 30% is enough to stop the idiotic puerile heckling instead of proper debate at PMQ.
It wasn't improved for having a woman PM, so I doubt an increase in the proportion of women will improve the tone and content of PMQ. I detest PMQ, as it is inherently puerile, but it is about as subtle and sophisticated as modern parliamentary reporting can handle.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
That said, is it not possible that at least some of that might be that the over-riding question in Scotland is its status in the UK, the after-effects of the independence referendum and what seems from here to be the growing sense of estrangement between Scotland and the rest of the UK? That's not to say people who voted SNP didn't care about the issues and only voted because of their stance on this question, but that that stance might have caused people to put such mis-givings aside and vote for them.
Scotland has fewer immigrants than England, and the immigrants we do have are more dispersed throughout the community.
I can't compare and contrast, because I only see the Scottish experience, but I'd say it's easy for an immigrant here to have a dual Scottish / ethnic identity e.g. the Muslim teacher who wears a tartan hijab on St Andrews Day.
One of the SNP organisers in my constituency is an English born Muslim woman who was wearing a "Proud to be Scottish" badge when I saw her last week. It's possible to rock the "bagpipes and bhangra" look like Humza Yousef.
So it doesn't have to be an "either / or"
Also, Scotland has a long, long tradition of outward emigration; there are few of us who don't have relatives in Australia, or Canada, or America. Every Burns night, there are stories in the press of far-flung Burns suppers and the difficulties of exporting haggis. As a result, we grew up knowing that it's normal for people to retain elements of their own culture in another country.
If we can have Highland Games in America, why shouldn't there be the Mela in Glasgow?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
OK, I have a question from this election. It is a genuine question, that I am actually puzzled about.
One of my colleagues at work has said that he only voted Tory to keep Labour out, and would have voted UKIP otherwise.
I can actually understand people who want more right-wing economic approach. I think they are wildly mistaken, but they feel it has some logic and sense. In this case, it may be that supporting UKIP makes sense.
Except that he is Indian. What he seems to misunderstand is that UKIP (and the Tories) are not wanting to support people like him. If UKIP were to get into power, his children could be refused jobs because they are "not British". The radical right are not supporting people like him - they are supporting White British people.
So my question is, why are relatively intelligent people like him so politically naive and stupid? How come people can be so stupid politically? Or is it just me who has been politically active for many years, and so find those who only think about politics every 5 years naive?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I don't think immigration was high on the list of voting priorities in Scotland. More of it being a non-issue than anything else.
Much more was made of immigration during the referendum campaign, as an example of Westminster policies adversely affecting Scotland. Much was made of the positive benefit to Scotland of immigration - economically, socially and culturally. The same arguments could be made in England, but rather than emphasise the positive economic benefit of immigration both Tory and Labour have pandered to the misconceived pseudo-racism of the masses. Another case of going where the people are rather than standing on high ground and saying "come over here". So, we have immigration controls adding to the strangling of economic recovery, and the prospect of further reductions in immigration, rather than a more open policy that is both more just and beneficial to the economy.
Further powers to allow Scotland more control over immigration are supposed to be in the package the Tories have promised. Whether they will materialise, and just how much freedom to set immigration policy in Holyrood they will give, remain to be seen.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I think it boils down to Farage having a very good PR approach - he picked something that is a centre of british culture - the pub - and made sure that he had lots of photos taken in a pub or holding a pint or a can of beer - the last one I saw was unopened - it was just a prop. He therefore appeals to people who don't really think about politics much but want British culture to be preserved.
It's not so far off an indian political party choosing a cow as its symbol. And he also chose the £ sign - so brash and gross and a totally naff image. But in fact it's a symbol of British uniqueness and also not a Euro. And the amateurishness of the design is another plus... The main parties OTOH chose symbols that are patently modern corporate PR-designed logos... it's not the symbol that people see, but the corporateness and blandness of them. And via that over-graphic designed-ness, their utter lack of connection to the kind of culture people long for.
[ 09. May 2015, 11:17: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
OK, I have a question from this election. It is a genuine question, that I am actually puzzled about.
One of my colleagues at work has said that he only voted Tory to keep Labour out, and would have voted UKIP otherwise.
I can actually understand people who want more right-wing economic approach. I think they are wildly mistaken, but they feel it has some logic and sense. In this case, it may be that supporting UKIP makes sense.
Except that he is Indian. What he seems to misunderstand is that UKIP (and the Tories) are not wanting to support people like him. If UKIP were to get into power, his children could be refused jobs because they are "not British". The radical right are not supporting people like him - they are supporting White British people.
So my question is, why are relatively intelligent people like him so politically naive and stupid? How come people can be so stupid politically? Or is it just me who has been politically active for many years, and so find those who only think about politics every 5 years naive?
UKIP has many followers from ethic minorities. Established racial communities have common concerns about new immigrants. If you live in Happytown and have an influx of people from Immigrania equivalent to 10% of your existing population, this puts pressures on your schools, health, and other public services whether your forebears date back five generations or five hundred.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a smidgen of good news.
I wonder if 30% is enough to stop the idiotic puerile heckling instead of proper debate at PMQ.
Seeing that the idiotic puerile heckling before the election was done by both male and female MPs I can't see it making a difference.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Except people who are themselves immigrants should know perfectly well how population growth actually works. For them to fall for some of the mythical fears seems particularly wrong-headed.
[x-post]
[ 09. May 2015, 13:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
A lot of the UKIP increase has come at the expense of the more dangerous far right parties.
The BNP lost 99.7% of their vote from 2010. That is something for all lovers of democracy, left or right, to celebrate.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
If you live in Happytown and have an influx of people from Immigrania equivalent to 10% of your existing population, this puts pressures on your schools, health, and other public services whether your forebears date back five generations or five hundred.
The pressure on schools etc is only an issue of they are not adequately funded. For which there is no excuse within a community that is experiencing economic growth which is almost always the case where there are new immigrants.
By definition, immigrants who make the trip on their own have the resources and determination to immigrate - they have the money for the visa application, airfare etc which almost certainly means they are skilled and can easily find work, and the determination to move is also the same sort of characteristic that will mean they're likely to work hard, often establishing their own business. People like this will generate jobs and without a doubt pay more in taxes than the costs to the tax payer of the associated services they need - schools, doctors etc.
Other immigrants are brought over by others, usually people already here. They're brought in to do low-skilled, low-paid jobs that employers can't find anyone locally to fill. Which is why a lot of people from Eastern Europe are here, and they usually come for short periods of time. That means they won't be here to retire and claim pensions, they often have no family with them and so no schools needed, and rarely need to see the doctor. On low wages they won't pay much in tax, but they're not asking much from the tax payer either.
The "problem" isn't with the immigrants. The "problem" is with a government that doesn't return the increased tax revenue they bring back into the community where they live to provide things like schools and medical centres. Of course, the incoming government is unlikely to pass back tax revenue from the native population into such things either, preferring to squander it on tax-breaks for their wealthy chums and unnecessary nuclear armed submarines.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Alan:
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
local economy (small traders rather than national/international chains, local taxes back into local services) makes for local wealth and also builds community. A lot of the changes we have seen in the past 25 years are (probably accidentally) anti-community.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Just looking through some of the earlier comments about PR and reading a BBC article on how things might otherwise have turned out. Interestingly, if we'd had PR, UKIP would have got 83 seats.
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Well I know which constituency yours is then - and if that vote goes any way other than blue I'll streak naked down Sheep St. Majority at the moment is what? 18,000 ish? She'll get about 12,000 maj I think.
30,000ish, actually. Sheep St is spared
Posted by Dogwalker (# 14135) on
:
A connection between UK 2015 and US 2016: maybe this is well known over there, but it surprised me.
Larry Sanders, who stood (and lost) for the Greens in Oxford West and Abingdon, and US Senator Bernie Sanders are brothers, sharing similar political outlooks.
CNN has an interview with Larry.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
A connection between UK 2015 and US 2016: maybe this is well known over there, but it surprised me.
It came up a year or two ago, when Bernie Sanders (the only US politician to use the word "socialist" without meaning it as an insult) came up in discussion.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Interestingly, there was one party that has been consistently pro-immigration for many years. That's the Scottish Nationalist Party. It didn't seem to do them any harm at all.
Immigration to southern England has traditionally been much higher than to Scotland which would probably explain the difference in attitude. There are less people squashing in, and presumably members of the dominant culture do not feel threatened.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Except opposition to immigrants is often higher in parts of England where there are less of them - and vice versa.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
This is a non-point which you make because, once again, you are assuming that democracy is inevitably about parties. My view is that it is about electing the individuals who govern us. While it makes sense for those individuals to organise themselves into political parties, the fact remains that government is carried on by real people who use their own minds and experiences to make decisions on behalf of those who have elected them.
I don't know what century and what country you live in.
You should have spotted that I live in New Zealand, which I suppose means I think that we are some time in the Fourth Age, or perhaps the fifth as Faramir and Samwise don't seem to be around any more.
quote:
It's definitely not the 21stC UK though. I have not spotted the slightest difference here to the "party politics" I have seen in Germany. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You are not being governed by "individuals", other than in the sense that obviously any human grouping is made up out of individuals. In fact, take this whole bloody thread. It is mostly a whine about how the Conservatives have won, in spite of being so mean. Oh, and how Labour has lost its socialist ways. And we wonder what the SNP will do, and how the Lib Dems will recover from being crushed etc. If individuals are being mentioned, then it is almost invariably the party leadership. We are for the most part not discussing the fate of this or that backbench MP. And we are not discussing either how say Mr Cameron did in his constituency in Oxford, nobody really cares about that, we are discussing his management at party level. You declared yourself to be a long time Lib Dem supporter, and gave a long analysis of the problems faced by that party. You didn't say that you are supporting some particular MP and didn't give us details on what challenges that individual faced.
The UK is quite simply another party-governed democracy, at least at the national level. Deal with it.
This adds nothing to what you've previously said, nor does it answer anything I've said.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The system as used in places like Germany, NZ and Scotland subverts that principle, and to that extent they are less democratic than FPTP polities.
As mentioned, in the German system anybody elected in their constituency gets a seat in parliament (with a caveat concerning the "hurdle", which however practically never plays a role).
As explained by you, some members of parliament (in the German system) do not represent constituencies. They are appointed off a list.
NB: the "hurdle" plays a role in just about every election here because voters know to split their votes to try and get increased representation for their side of the political spectrum.
Voters Epsom in Auckland, for example, consistently elects a right-wing libertarian as its MP but use their party vote for National (main centre-right party), so they get 2 MPs for the price of one.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In any event, most electoral systems "systematically trash" the votes of those whose preferred candidate or slate of candidates does not win. Not many countries have party proportional governments. One side has to lose.
You now have a 12-seat majority in Parliament - 51.2% of seats, Sinn Fein corrected - for a party that was supported by 36.9% of voters. Yes, in every system votes get "trashed" in the sense of some candidates losing. But that does not justify this kind of result.
Why is it not justified?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
No. "Democracy" as currently understood is the principle that people choose who governs them. It is less about successful government than human rights.
Yes, and now try to turn your principle into reality. Invariably, you will have to make pragmatic choices to get some system that works in practice. Remember, this is about you critiquing the "hurdle" as not being principled. And my point is quite simply that the "hurdle" is a pragmatic measure, as there must be many pragmatic measures if one wants to turn the ideal of democracy into an actual reality. Pretty much all of the actual democracy you find yourself in is based on pragmatic choices people have made. For example, why precisely do you not expect to vote until in about five years from now? The election cycle is not part of your "democratic ideal", is it now? It is what you get when you try to turn your democratic ideal into reality, and have to face the fact that people cannot be expected to vote all the time, and that politicians need some stability of power to do their work. The election cycle is pragmatic solution for a practical problem in implementing the ideal of democracy. So is the "hurdle". You can of course critique the "hurdle" on various grounds, but not because it is not "principled". Very little in the actual political process is "principled".
You're comparing apples with oranges here. It is part of the essence of representative democracy that those elected are allowed to get on with the job. An arbitrary threshold rule is not.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
With the exception of Italy, this is really not a problem for mature democracies.
The UK is a mature democracy. As shown above, in a proportional system without "hurdle", the UK would now most likely head for a re-election. With the "hurdle", there would most likely be a coalition government. This kind of measure works because political coalitions are the harder to form the more parties are involved. And the chance to construct a majority with fewer parties increases if there is a minimum seat size to them. You may not like the "hurdle" for other reasons, but it certainly does the job it is intended to do.
I think a moment's reflection makes clear that had this election been conducted under PR, or indeed AV or STV the result would have been completely different, and the parties would have campaigned in quite different ways. I can see this from comparing UK elections with those in NZ which has a system much like Germany's. The key point to note that here voters and political parties (which lamentably are now built into the constitutional fabric of its political process) enter an election campaign knowing that an absolute majority in parliament is unlikely. Coalitions are an entirely normal and expected of the discussion.
You cannot conclude that the vote share would have been the same had this election been conducted under PR.* Accordingly you cannot conclude that a second election would have been necessary.
Even if the vote share had been the same, I note that the combined Tory, UKIP and Lib Dem vote share was about 57%.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If MPs squabble too much amongst themselves to form a stable administration, the appropriate solution is for the electorate to kick them all out and replace them with other MPs. Under a constituency-based system, this is simple.
Frankly, this is so far removed from the political reality in the UK that I will not bother commenting on it.
..which is a point in favour of FPTP. And I haven't even had to note that the public opted to retain it in a referendum a few years ago, so it is the democratically preferred choice. It is true that on boards like this one, plenty (in my view perversely) rejected the alternative because they wanted a better one. I expect most people opted to retain FPTP because they thought it a perfectly decent system.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
So on the cards in the near future:
- Overturning the hunting ban.
- The snoopers charter.
- Withdrawal from the HRA.
- Weaker employment rights.
Anything I missed?
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
The EU referendum looks set to dominate the middle of this parliament.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So on the cards in the near future:
- Overturning the hunting ban.
- The snoopers charter.
- Withdrawal from the HRA.
- Weaker employment rights.
Anything I missed?
Finish tendering all state provided aspects of the NHS, so the process can't be reversed in the next parliament. Owing to the circle debacle, in hospitals this will be done be devolving out specialties over time. Something that has already started to happen during the lifetime of the previous parliament.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So on the cards in the near future:
- Overturning the hunting ban.
- The snoopers charter.
- Withdrawal from the HRA.
- Weaker employment rights.
Anything I missed?
Finish tendering all state provided aspects of the NHS, so the process can't be reversed in the next parliament. Owing to the circle debacle, in hospitals this will be done be devolving out specialties over time. Something that has already started to happen during the lifetime of the previous parliament.
That process was started by the Blair govt when they demanded a specific minimum NVQ or other level of training for every different job in the NHS. I know it just sounds "sensible" but the way it was rolled out was pretty clearly a prelude to obtaining services from the private sector.
Wrt the NHS I find myself slightly ambivalent - in that the big pharma PR train has resulted in a huge public pressure for new drugs new drugs and has therefore channelled a lot of NHS funds into shareholder profits rather than anything particularly useful. e.g. between 0.5 and 2% of NHS funds go on Statins. There is no way out of this hole - other than declaring a moratorium on new medications and drawing clear and painful lines as to what kind of treatment is affordable through public prescription. This is, of course, a 2-tier system because anyone with money will be able to go beyond the lines drawn. The increasing age of our population adds to the pressure. So far I haven't seen anyone make any move in a direction that will prevent the NHS overspending year after year other than by reducing baseline services. However, as Florence Nightingale well knew - if you have high standards of cleanliness and good quality basic nursing and fresh air (see how many wards in new hospitals rely on vent ducts) and natural light - you're already 50% of the way there. Without that cleanliness and basic air/light we have hospitals becoming increasingly dangerous places to be in. Subcontracting cleaning out saves a few thousand pounds and digs a hole in the entire foundations of modern medicine.
quote:
Anything I missed?
TIPP
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
This adds nothing to what you've previously said, nor does it answer anything I've said.
Curious. I would say it undermines everything you have said. In summary: By and large, your MPs do not act as "individuals", but as party members. By and large, everybody from the media down to you, personally, evaluates government in terms of party politics, not "individual" politics. De facto, both the execution and the discussion of politics is just as party-centric in the UK as in for example Germany. Insisting that votes must be counted individual-centric, even if that falsifies the actual party-centric intentions of voters, is thus a classic case of ideology preventing the adoption of appropriate solutions.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
As explained by you, some members of parliament (in the German system) do not represent constituencies. They are appointed off a list.
Correct. They remain however proper representatives of the will of the people. I should perhaps mention that in the German system you get two votes, one to assign to a local candidate, one to assign to national representation.
(Frankly, the actual German system is more complicated than I had realised. For example, there federal structure apparently plays a role in the sense that the seats are first split according to the different "lands" (like Bavaria) in proportion to their population. The representation calculations are actually done at the "land" level, and the national parliament is then re-assembled from these. I also note that I obviously miscalculated above in giving SNP no representation because they failed the "5% hurdle", for they clearly did not fail to gain at least 3 constituencies. So their candidates would enter parliament, and potentially its numbers would have to be adjusted to represent they share of votes. But (as I have just learned) not really their share on the national level, but rather in Scotland (which would be the equivalent of a German "land"). So I now think that they would presumably simply take almost all of the Scotland-dedicated seats of the federal parliament. But it's complicated, and I think I would need an afternoon to actually figure things out.)
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Voters Epsom in Auckland, for example, consistently elects a right-wing libertarian as its MP but use their party vote for National (main centre-right party), so they get 2 MPs for the price of one.
I can't speak for the NZ system, but that's not really a fair claim for the German system. It would be more accurate to say that everybody gets 2 MPs for their 2 votes, one for the local constituency and one for the national representation. And then some places will choose to split their votes, so that they get a local MP from one party, but a national MP from the other. This however puts them at no advantage to those who took their two MPs from the same party.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Why is it not justified?
Because 36.9% is nowhere near 51.2%. In this parliament, Conservative politics will have the absolute majority. But it is note the case that the absolute majority of people wanted Conservative politics, far from it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
You're comparing apples with oranges here. It is part of the essence of representative democracy that those elected are allowed to get on with the job. An arbitrary threshold rule is not.
If nobody can form a government, or at least not a stable one, then those elected can also cannot get on with their job. The "hurdle" aims to reduce the frequency of that happening. You can critique whether it achieves that aim. But it is no more "arbitrary" than the election cycle. Notably, the numerical value of the hurdle has the same "arbitrary but only within a sensible range" quality as the length of the election cycle. Also for the election cycle, there is no really good reason to prefer five years over four years. But there is good reason not to go to one year or ten years.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The key point to note that here voters and political parties (which lamentably are now built into the constitutional fabric of its political process) enter an election campaign knowing that an absolute majority in parliament is unlikely. Coalitions are an entirely normal and expected of the discussion.
I would consider that to be a very good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Even if the vote share had been the same, I note that the combined Tory, UKIP and Lib Dem vote share was about 57%.
True, but since Lib Dem and UKIP would never form a coalition with each other, also irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
And I haven't even had to note that the public opted to retain it in a referendum a few years ago, so it is the democratically preferred choice. It is true that on boards like this one, plenty (in my view perversely) rejected the alternative because they wanted a better one. I expect most people opted to retain FPTP because they thought it a perfectly decent system.
That's true enough. It's one of these interesting questions of democracy though how long such decisions should be taken to last. A question that I'm sure the SNP is pondering as well...
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
If you live in Happytown and have an influx of people from Immigrania equivalent to 10% of your existing population, this puts pressures on your schools, health, and other public services whether your forebears date back five generations or five hundred.
The pressure on schools etc is only an issue of they are not adequately funded. For which there is no excuse within a community that is experiencing economic growth which is almost always the case where there are new immigrants.
By definition, immigrants who make the trip on their own have the resources and determination to immigrate - they have the money for the visa application, airfare etc which almost certainly means they are skilled and can easily find work, and the determination to move is also the same sort of characteristic that will mean they're likely to work hard, often establishing their own business. People like this will generate jobs and without a doubt pay more in taxes than the costs to the tax payer of the associated services they need - schools, doctors etc.
Other immigrants are brought over by others, usually people already here. They're brought in to do low-skilled, low-paid jobs that employers can't find anyone locally to fill. Which is why a lot of people from Eastern Europe are here, and they usually come for short periods of time. That means they won't be here to retire and claim pensions, they often have no family with them and so no schools needed, and rarely need to see the doctor. On low wages they won't pay much in tax, but they're not asking much from the tax payer either.
The "problem" isn't with the immigrants. The "problem" is with a government that doesn't return the increased tax revenue they bring back into the community where they live to provide things like schools and medical centres. Of course, the incoming government is unlikely to pass back tax revenue from the native population into such things either, preferring to squander it on tax-breaks for their wealthy chums and unnecessary nuclear armed submarines.
Personally I don't see immigrants as "problems" - I was responding to the question above as to why current ethnic groups may take this view.
But on your point, even where immigrants are net contributors to a local economy it doesn't follow that the value of their economic contribution could, with sufficient speed, translate into adequate education and health services even if local and national government chose to. There is a time lapse between having the cash to create health and education infrastructure and physically putting it into place. We also have a problem of recruiting GPs to meet demands for health care created by longevity.
Choosing where to spend money is one issue, the lack of effective planning to meet demands created by a range of factors - including birth rates, mortality rates and longevity (as well as immigration and internal movements of UK population) also impact on specific localities.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There are certainly other issues. Lack of planning is certainly one of them. There seems to be a certain amount of unregulated house building (there are regulations about the quality of the housing etc, but other parts of the process aren't as regulated) - it doesn't seem unusual for a developer to turn an abandoned warehouse into flats, have 30 young couples move in and then someone think "wait a mo, we've just got 20 pre-school and primary age children on our doorstep, what school can they go to?" That's just a lack of planning and foresight, nothing to do with immigration.
Issues like recruiting enough people for the health service (and, other sectors such as child minders and teachers) is another problem that isn't a result of immigration. It's partly funding, with austerity measures squeezing the pot of funding for new posts. It's partly immigration control, for decades the UK has depended upon immigrants to fill posts and then the government puts on ludicrous immigration caps and wonders why they can't recruit enough doctors.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I see that George Galloway has started a legal challenge over the result in his constituency, claiming that the Labour candidate made false claims and also some irregularities in postal votes.
Which since Labour have also made complaints about Galloway making false claims, and he was reported to the police over release of exit poll data before close of polling, does seem to make it a case of probably a bit of blame on both sides.
It won't affect the national result. And with an 11000 majority, I can't see questioning a few postal ballots is going to make much difference in Bradford either.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
I just read that too. My first reaction was along the "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest" lines, but without the backdrop of the target of the anger having any worth. I often wonder just who specifically he is grandstanding for in this way, and who his financial backers really are. A truly contemptible man.
Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Elections are won from the middle of the political spectrum. Clinton knew it, Blair perfected it, and Cameron got it.
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are. Any party needs to have those people if it is to have power. If Labour doesn't head off into the middle ground, they'll spend many, many years acting as OfGov.
Those who think Blair was a waste of time as Labour PM. forget, or never knew, just how horrible the alternatives were (Michael Howard with 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?').
I agree. When the chips are down and as a rule, the largest minority of voters go for the party closest to a traditional, middle-of-the-road 'wet Tory' position. At general elections this 'largest minority' tends to reject extremism. We elected Thatcher in 83, for example, only because the country saw Michael Foot as even more extreme at the time - though it's hard to believe looking back. In 87 Kinnock was still deemed too extreme against Thatcher(!) Major was the archetypal wet Tory and got in in 92 against the odds.
Blair got in in 97 as (virtually) a wet Tory in disguise and Major lost because the country rejected the sleaze connection and the right-wing sh1ts in the Tory backbenches. When the Tories tried to defeat Blair with a succession of right-wing leaders they palpably failed.
Like it or not, Cameron came over as the lesser of extreme equals like Farage/ SNP etc. The 'largest minority' still rule, it seems.
[ 11. May 2015, 09:16: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
That's also what happened in Scotland. However, as Scotland is generally to left of England, it was Cameron who was seen as "extreme" and the "largest minority" went to the SNP.
YouGov did a profile of each constituency. In mine, (based on 970 people polled) they concluded that we were to the right of the Scottish average, but to the left of the UK average. The constituency profile showed that people here were more likely to be in work than the Scottish or UK average, and also more likely to be older / white / homeowners. This explains why we're to the right of the Scottish average, but I found it interesting that affluent / home owning / older voters are still to the left of the UK average.
[ 11. May 2015, 10:50: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are certainly other issues. Lack of planning is certainly one of them. There seems to be a certain amount of unregulated house building (there are regulations about the quality of the housing etc, but other parts of the process aren't as regulated) - it doesn't seem unusual for a developer to turn an abandoned warehouse into flats, have 30 young couples move in and then someone think "wait a mo, we've just got 20 pre-school and primary age children on our doorstep, what school can they go to?" That's just a lack of planning and foresight, nothing to do with immigration.
Issues like recruiting enough people for the health service (and, other sectors such as child minders and teachers) is another problem that isn't a result of immigration. It's partly funding, with austerity measures squeezing the pot of funding for new posts. It's partly immigration control, for decades the UK has depended upon immigrants to fill posts and then the government puts on ludicrous immigration caps and wonders why they can't recruit enough doctors.
The need for school and other resources is certainly recognised by the planning process in Wales and developers, predictably, hate it with a passion.
Down the road from us a large house was demolished about 15 years ago and there have been at least five schemes to build flats or (most recently) houses on the land. Caveats have always been added regarding car parking and a hefty one-off sum demanded up front towards the education budget. The land remains derelict, which is a shame as it is over the road from a park, convenient for schools and has a beautiful view to the west (well, as beautiful a view as you get in Newport!)
As for health workers I was in hospital for a while a couple of weeks ago and three of the four A & E doctors who treated/checked me weren't "white British" by any means. Thank God for immigrants.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Fair point about the SNP: mea culpa, I honestly wasn't aware of their pro-immigration stance - more power to their elbow!
That said, I do still wonder how that would go down in England; I'm fairly sure that it would be much less well received down here.
...
Perhaps in England it's different: the immigration issue seems to be caught up in all the debates about English "identity" etc.
I dunno... I just don't see an avowedly pro-immigration party in England doing that well, sadly.
Didn't do the Green Party much harm - they quadrupled their vote share, retained their sitting MP, retained 5 or 6 times more deposits than their previous best effort, and in the days since the election have seen more than 2000 members join the Party, whose membership had surged to previously unimagined levels before the Election. As a consequence they have increased their share of Short Money, and have given themselves more to build on next time around.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So on the cards in the near future:
- Overturning the hunting ban.
- The snoopers charter.
- Withdrawal from the HRA.
- Weaker employment rights.
Anything I missed?
Fracking
Tendering out the NHS
TTIP & ISDS
It's not going to be a fun time
Oh, and y'know how we were all pleased to see the back of Farage? He's ba-ack.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
Spoke to a friend today and the election came up in conversation, natch. He's a public sector worker, doing OK, though not brilliantly paid. Will probably make it to management in the fullness of time if there's still a public sector left for him to manage.
Turns out he voted Tory - and in a marginal seat that Labour were targeting and failed to win. His reasons were rather vague, he thought that Labour had wasted money on "hare brained schemes", though when I asked for an example, he couldn't name one. I ended up giving him one - the Iraq war - though I also pointed out that the Tories were rather keen on that too. I think he'd picked up the phrase on social media, and it had lodged in his mind.
My initial thought was "if Labour can't reach people like him they're well and truly stuffed", but I think it gives an insight into how people who aren't very politically engaged decide how to vote. Labour probably had the best of the conventional campaign, but the Tories won it on Facebook, twitter etc.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That's also what happened in Scotland. However, as Scotland is generally to left of England, it was Cameron who was seen as "extreme" and the "largest minority" went to the SNP.
An interesting thing the election coverage reminded me of is that Scotland was not always to the left of England and in the 1950s tended to vote slightly more Conservative. What happened to that?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Good question. I don't know the answer. I know that there used to be a strong religious influence on the way people voted. I asked one old woman how her family had voted and she replied "We were Free Church" assuming that I would know that Free Church = Liberal. Church of Scotland tended towards Conservative, Roman Catholics tended towards Labour. I'm not sure how strong those links were, but even in the 2010 General election, many LibDem constituencies corresponded to areas where the Free Church is strongest. The Liberals supported the Crofters War of the 1880s, and that seemed to have a lingering legacy.
But I'm just havering, really. I don't know the answer to your question. Anybody?
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
Hmmm I had wondered that! So maybe the decline of the Church of Scotland ties into the decline of Conservatism in Scotland? Anyone for or agin?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Can I suggest a "decoupling" of religion and politics rather than a "decline" in the church per se?
Paging Cottontail!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
An interesting thing the election coverage reminded me of is that Scotland was not always to the left of England and in the 1950s tended to vote slightly more Conservative. What happened to that?
The decline was likely well under way but the Thatcherite demolition of Scottish industry, followed by the poll tax, seem to have been the key factors in making the tories unelectable in most of Scotland.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
A thought:
My friend Alastair has lived in Scotland all his life apart from a brief period at university. His take on the apparent left-sing biasis in Scottish politics is that it has partly come about because of the demonising of the Conservatives, and especially Margaret Thatcher. He believes that the degree of dislike (perhaps hatred is a better word) that has attached to the word 'Tory' is such that generations born from the 1970s onwards truly believe that the Conservative Party is directly comparable to the powers of darkness. Since the LibDems are seen a largely middle-class the answer north of the border has been to vote for anything or anyone else.
And many Scots are fed up with the corruption and nepotism of Scottish Labour and so the rise of the SNP has been swift and spectacular.
In short, the creation of the right-wing bogeyman is partly responsible for the rise of the SNP.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
An interesting thing the election coverage reminded me of is that Scotland was not always to the left of England and in the 1950s tended to vote slightly more Conservative. What happened to that?
The decline was likely well under way but the Thatcherite demolition of Scottish industry, followed by the poll tax, seem to have been the key factors in making the tories unelectable in most of Scotland.
But even last week they still got about 15% of the vote- a long way from the 50% of 1955, but more than the very distorted allocation of seats would suggest. In 1992 - post-Thatch, post Poll Tax - they got just over 25% of the vote.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In short, the creation of the right-wing bogeyman is partly responsible for the rise of the SNP.
But why, if this is a correct analysis, was the "right-wing bogeyman" created in Scotland but not in England? OK, I can see that industrial areas like Glasgow might have an undying hate for Maggie just as Newcastle or South Wales might have. But why should this have any more traction in rural Scotland than it did in southern England? Maggie had (and has) lots of committed fans in England - why not so much in Scotland?
And it doesn't explain the pre-Thatcher decline from the 1950s peak.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
So, RIght-Wing Dave's nice new Cabinet includes a Justice Minister who opposed an enquiry into the paedophile scandals at Westminster and is said to be pro-hanging, an Equality Minister who voted against equal marriage, a Minister for Disabled People who is in favour of the cuts to disability benefits, and a Science Minister without a science background, but who is in favour of fracking.
At the same time, the rabid press organs that are the Mail and the Express have had front page headlines trumpeting how great it is that the "Madness of Human Rights" is set for repeal...
It's going to be a long and very damaging five years, isn't it?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's almost as if the barbarians have entered the city, and we wait to see what will escape their vandalism, BBC, NHS, Human Rights, etc.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
I know. I'm feeling a bit bad about my level of engagement with it though - there's going to be a lot of battles to fight, and if people all just do what I do, clicktivism, discussion and moaning, that's not much of a protest, is it.
Annoingly, I'm away on holiday for the 20th June Anti-Austerity Demo , and I'm working until 15:30 on May 30th for the demo against cuts .
(I wonder if there might be mileage in a SofF "See You On The Streets" thread in All Saints - there are a lot of us who seem to be pretty gutted by the prospect of what five years of a Tory majority will do to us... Does anyone think that might be a thing worth trying as a thread?)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Good idea. Don't mourn, organize.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In short, the creation of the right-wing bogeyman is partly responsible for the rise of the SNP.
Right, because one can automatically create bogeymen out of whole cloth without any media support.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
(I wonder if there might be mileage in a SofF "See You On The Streets" thread in All Saints - there are a lot of us who seem to be pretty gutted by the prospect of what five years of a Tory majority will do to us... Does anyone think that might be a thing worth trying as a thread?)
If we know where you end up protesting, we can organise a SoF pro-Tory counter-demo.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If we know where you end up protesting, we can organise a SoF pro-Tory counter-demo.
All three of you...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Just realized that the above mentioned science minister is Jo Johnson, brother of Boris; well, thank heaven for some class, and also, Floreat Etona, Floreat Bullingdona!
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That's also what happened in Scotland. However, as Scotland is generally to left of England, it was Cameron who was seen as "extreme" and the "largest minority" went to the SNP.
I understand there is research which states that people in Scotland identify further to the left, however, when asked specific questions on matters such as benefits, immigration, tax, Europe, law and order and so on, there is no difference or leastways a negligible one.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Anglican't
If we know where you end up protesting, we can organise a SoF pro-Tory counter-demo.
That's fine, because it's in your genes. I've finally caught up with an article in New Scientist about belief (4 April 2015) Paywalled (Though there seem to be a number of places that have downloads. Not honest, I suppose.)
There is some discussion of political differences, curiously looking more at the right than the left, but it is New Scientist, so maybe they have liberal as default.
Conservatives, apparently, react more fearfully to threatening images, so may see the world as more threatening. They are more likely to be disgusted by disgusting things. In all political persuasions, disgust makes people more averse to the morally suspect, but this reaction is stronger in conservatives. (DH territory.)
Instinctive responses can lead people with different political beliefs to inhabit different realities, with people reaching beliefs first, and then selecting the facts to fit them, and seeking justifications for this. People also adopt shibboleth beliefs to ensure they fit into the right tribe - such issues as climate change, evolution and I think we can spot some others.
I keep on thinking that I see more right wing contributors to web sites thinking that writing people off as lefties, with a few oft repeated phrases which do not go into detail is enough to show up the weakness of their arguments rather than the reverse. I suspect that this may be because I am in my own little bubble and don't register anything so basic. I usually see references to the homeless, the disabled and so on in the left corner. Not "You lost, losers, that's democracy, you can't protest because you live in a state which allows you the right to protest, so shut up." Not here of course - or at least, not in this part of here.
What does seem to be a real difference - and I've come across it in a number of places, almost in the same words- is a conservative belief that democracy means that a person is elected into a post (need not be as an MP) in order to take all the decisions without further consultation of the electorate); while the left hold a belief that democracy involves - in fact requires - a continual interaction with the person elected and the decision making process. And a belief that if they refuse to listen, action is needed.
It is really sad that the only thing the conservatives felt the need to do this for was fox hunting.
[ 12. May 2015, 18:48: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
A thought:
My friend Alastair has lived in Scotland all his life apart from a brief period at university. His take on the apparent left-sing biasis in Scottish politics is that it has partly come about because of the demonising of the Conservatives, and especially Margaret Thatcher.
Alan made a post about a week back in response to mine on Scottish nationalism and my experience of it (in Glasgow in the 90s). I intend to respond to it in the next few days. In the meantime, I will make this comment on what I observed back then.
The Tories were seen as right-wing English nationalists who cared about nothing except money. They were individualists who placed little emphasis on societal cohesion. In that respect they were un-Scottish, and voting for them was an unpatriotic thing to do.
Labour tended to campaign on demonising the Tories as un-Scottish (see above). However, coming from a relatively wealthy Tory-Lib Dem marginal, I was astonished that off campus, Labour didn't seem to do anything in their constituencies at all, and their activities tended to get directed from the top. I remember even back then thinking that the party was on borrowed time.
The SNP also demonised the Tories, and fought it out with Labour over who was more Scottish. It was noticeable that their activist base was younger than Labour's and growing. They had a far more articulate leader in Alex Salmond. Like the Lib Dems, they were picking up a lot of local support on the basis that their councillors did a better job than Labour's.
In short, the atmosphere of political debate was coloured by a kind of war between the SNP and Labour over who was the more fair and Scottish (the two being treated as synonyms). The obvious casulty of such a debate is support for the Union, so it is not surprising that the SNP were slowly winning that debate.
[ 12. May 2015, 18:51: Message edited by: Cod ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That's also what happened in Scotland. However, as Scotland is generally to left of England, it was Cameron who was seen as "extreme" and the "largest minority" went to the SNP.
I understand there is research which states that people in Scotland identify further to the left, however, when asked specific questions on matters such as benefits, immigration, tax, Europe, law and order and so on, there is no difference or leastways a negligible one.
YouGov have asked questions on those issues and concluded that Scots are to the left. However, YouGov draw from a pool of people who have signed up to receive opinion polls, which probably affects the outcomes.
Here's an example You can check any other constituency by clicking on the map.
[ 12. May 2015, 19:08: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Just how left wing actually are the SNP in, say, the rural north of Scotland? I know they'll be signed up to the party's national manifesto, but how lefty is your average SNP voter or even member in that sort or area?
[ 12. May 2015, 19:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In short, the creation of the right-wing bogeyman is partly responsible for the rise of the SNP.
But why, if this is a correct analysis, was the "right-wing bogeyman" created in Scotland but not in England? OK, I can see that industrial areas like Glasgow might have an undying hate for Maggie just as Newcastle or South Wales might have. But why should this have any more traction in rural Scotland than it did in southern England? Maggie had (and has) lots of committed fans in England - why not so much in Scotland?
And it doesn't explain the pre-Thatcher decline from the 1950s peak.
The Poll Tax was trialled in Scotland and was introduced as a work in progress. It upset a lot of people who weren't against the Poll Tax per se. For example "student" hadn't been properly defined for the purpose of "student discount" It was clear that undergraduates were "students" but not clear that post grads were. My then fiance, now husband was doing his PhD, and faced the possibility of 60% of his income going on Poll Tax. His parents would have bailed him out, but there were others who faced having to drop out. His supervisor, a Prof in a big house, who stood to gain personally from the Poll Tax was fighting against it because of the impact on his department of PhD students potentially giving up their studies.
When we got married, I notified the Poll Tax office in advance, but had my notification bounced, as it had to be done after we were married. In fact, it had to be done within 14 days of marriage. I phoned up to explain that we'd be going on honeymoon after our wedding, but was told that we'd be fined if we flew off without having completed our Poll Tax paperwork.
Fortunately, we had a window of opportunity, as we got married on a Saturday, and were flying off on honeymoon on Mon afternoon. So we got up early on Monday morning, and went to the Poll Tax office to confirm we were now married and living together.
I was absolutely spitting mad that I was forced to queue in a council office less than 48 hours after our wedding, or face a crippling fine.
By the time it was introduced in England, they'd realised that it is not unreasonable for newly weds to go on honeymoon, and newly weds don't like getting up early on their second morning together, and they'd extended the period.
Because it was being trialled, and hadn't been fully thought out it adversely affected a lot of people, including the affluent middle classes, in bizarre and hurtful ways.
26 years on, I'm still pissed off about being a newly wed in a queue in a council office, when I wanted to be a newly wed snuggled up with my new husband.
There was a Spitting Image sketch in which Maggie Thatcher raked her finger nails down Scotland and said "Scotland? Ah, you mean the Testing Ground" and that was certainly what the Poll Tax felt like.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Although the Poll Tax was actually introduced early in Scotland at the request of the Scottish Conservatives, wasn't it, because there was aa rate revaluation in the offing and they wanted to avoid having the rates increased*.
It's another one of those myths (the local equivalent here, I suppose, is Churchill sending the troops to deal with striking miners at Tonypandy, when he actually held troops back even though the coal owners and local magistrates/ police wanted him to send them in).
*Sadly it also made a good joke obsolete- about the lady selling her house in Morningside who, when asked what the rates were like, denied that there were any rates at all there.
'No rates, really?'
'Certainly not- rates in Adelaide Terrace, the very idea! A few wee mice, perhaps...'
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
A simple question... why were enough people persuaded to vote Conservative to give the Conservatives a majority?
Of course my theory is that our message chimed with the electorate. They preferred our policies over those of the other parties. Which again begs the question why?
Perhaps I am wrong though and there are other reasons that explain why enough people voted Conservative to return a majority Conservative government.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
<SNIP>
What does seem to be a real difference - and I've come across it in a number of places, almost in the same words- is a conservative belief that democracy means that a person is elected into a post (need not be as an MP) in order to take all the decisions without further consultation of the electorate); while the left hold a belief that democracy involves - in fact requires - a continual interaction with the person elected and the decision making process. And a belief that if they refuse to listen, action is needed.
It is really sad that the only thing the conservatives felt the need to do this for was fox hunting.
That's interesting, because the last time that Neil Kinnock lost, to John Major, the big issues in that election (as opposed to the ones that are always there) were constitutional reform (PR was being proposed) and devolution of some kind to Wales and Scotland.
Kinnock constantly said that if elected, he would hold commissions and referendums on those two things. Major said that if he was elected, neither would happen, period.
Kinnock lost, and Major won.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
A simple question... why were enough people persuaded to vote Conservative to give the Conservatives a majority?
I don't think it is a simple question.
The first thing to note is that although enough were persuaded, it wasn't actually a lot of people. The Conservatives only gained an extra 0.8% of the vote compared to 2010, that's less than 400,000 people. Labour had a +1.5% swing, the Greens +2.8%. Almost all those gains coming at the expense of the LibDems.
True, they must have found their Conservative candidate a more attractive choice than the alternatives. But what they found attractive is probably highly variable. Probably only a very small minority who voted Conservative would actually agree with everything in the Conservative manifesto. Which is why it's stupid to wave it around and claim a mandate to do all of what's in there (though, that's a mistake that practically every Prime Minister in recent memory has fallen for). Though, without a referendum on everything in that document it's effectively impossible to know what the people of Britain who voted Conservative do or don't want. Which is why MPs need to be listening to their constituents as votes on these proposals come their way - and if it's clear their constituents do not want what's proposed defy their whip.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by luvanddaisies quote:
Annoingly, I'm away on holiday for the 20th June Anti-Austerity Demo...
Shame.
I won't be there either - but that's more to do with not wishing to be associated with a blind-leading-the-blind outing being put together by an organisation set up by Unite, UNISON, the Communist Party of Great Britain, Tariq Ali, various smaller unions including the NUT, PCSU, NUJ and RMT, red Pepper, Salma Yaqoob (sometime leader of Respect) etc, etc, etc.
If you wish the UK to look after the most vulnerable of its population (and I assume you do) then you need to think about where the money is going to come from - and that has to be a sustainable source, not something like a mansion tax or levy on bonuses which will soon cease to produce anything.
Much of the anti-austerity/stop-the-cuts rhetoric sounds very appealing but it is at the level of Sixth Form debate, all pie-in-the-sky and with no concrete proposals on how to sustainably fund our ever-expanding health and welfare systems.
And regardless of how you personally feel about the result of the recent election, the fact is that the majority of votes were cast for broadly right-wing parties* that support reform of the welfare system.
In any case, why do people assume that reform is synonymous with destruction or making unfair? Surely a better way of ensuring that those in need of help get it is for people to work with the government and make constructive proposals, rather than the blanket "cuts are wrong, we oppose the lot" foot-stamping attitude on display since the election result became known.
* Conservative/ UKIP/ DUP
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
There's reform which is about making the system work better, and there's reform which is cuts-driven. I have no problem with the first of these and as a Socialist I'd like to see our welfare spending reduced considerably- by people being able to get jobs which give them a living income. If you want to cut welfare spending, start by making employers pay a living wage so we don't have to subsidise them with tax credits (and I know that was originally a Labour policy, before anyone points it out).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In any case, why do people assume that reform is synonymous with destruction or making unfair?
Because our experience over the last 5 years of coalition government has given us no reason to expect otherwise, and therefore we expect worse now the Tories have a slim majority.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Albertus
I think you may find that one of the first areas that will be looked at is the sheer unwieldyness of the whole system.
Top of my own personal list would be the nonsense of taking money with one hand (income tax) and then giving it back with the other (tax credits) when what is required is a proper look at, and overhaul of, the whole business of supporting people with children. Ever since Barbara Castle rolled together the old Family Allowance and the children's tax allowances into Child Benefit the monetary worth of CB has fallen further and further behind where it should be. Root-and-branch reform of the tax system as a whole is also required - and may now happen.
Doc Tor
There is still little realisation among the general public at the scale of chaos in the public finances in 2010 when the coalition took over. To be brutally frank, it would have made far more sense for all benefits to have been frozen in 2010 and for the NHS to have had funding cut in line with other items of government expenditure: that didn't happen and it wasn't just because the LibDems stopped the "wicked" tories.
[ 13. May 2015, 14:54: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My impression from the door-to-door canvassing I did prior to the election was that there was a concern about a bogeyman SNP/Labour pact or coalition - or, at the very least, if Labour got in then the SNP would be putting pressure on them south of the border as well as in Scotland.
There was also some concern about Labour's handling of the economy last time round.
So, I wasn't surprised to see a swing Torywards, but not to the extent that we saw both nationally and locally - although it's fair to say that they've hardly won by a landslide.
I have to say, that for different reasons to L'Organist, I do worry about the kind of knee-jerk 'let's take to the streets' approach which does, it seems to me, rely on simplistic 6th form (or even 4th form) solutions as well as an understandable sense of outrage ...
L'Organist may refer to the 'demonisation' of the Tories, but come on, when you see people walking around with pointed tails emerging from their trouser legs and suspicious bumps in their bouffant hair-cuts then it's hardly surprising that people begin to smell the sulphur.
Oh, the Tridents in their hands are a bit of a give away too -
Some on the Tory Right have done a pretty good job of demonising themselves.
What I worry about now is that some of the more vocal and rough-and-tumble lefties will disgrace themselves by smashing things up and running amok - thereby giving the Conservatives the moral high-ground and opportunity to say, 'There, we told you so ... let's have a clamp-down.'
I wish I didn't have to say that but I think it's true.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I find the phrase "anti-austerity" to be a bit like saying "stop the chemo, it's really unpleasant".
I think my question was simple, and it doesn't have a complicated answer. More people preferred our policies than those of any of the other parties, and in our electoral system, which was approved of by referendum only a couple of years ago, that is enough to give a majority, and a mandate to govern.
It can be spun a multitude of different ways to try to make it appear that the Conservatives didn't really win, but they did.
Even under a different electoral system, it needs to be made clear that UKIP would have been the big winners, not the Green Party or the Socialist Workers Party.
It seems to me that it is the electorate that has moved to the right over the years, certainly in England, for whatever reasons.
The haemorrhaging of votes from Labour to UKIP seems to reflect this.
I suspect "old Labour" voters don't recognising the current Party as being the same one that stood for the working man. Todays Labour Party is more focused on capturing the votes of luvies who work for the BBC or write for the Guardian.
Of course quite a lot of those old Labour types may not hold the right type of views on say immigration that would be acceptable at the more fashionable Islington dinner-parties.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think UKIP are playing on the fears of the traditional horny-handed sons of toil Labour voter - if we can put it that way.
They aren't out for the Islington chatting-classes vote because they know they've got no chance of getting it.
Why do you think they've persuaded Farage to stay on? They know he's the only one they've got who can string a coherent sentence together and because of his City heritage and connections he gives them at least a semblance of credibility.
I suspect that as and when Farage goes UKIP will swing into more unpleasant right-wing territory and become more like the BNP used to be before it imploded.
I can see reasons for an inclination to the right. But that doesn't make the pointy tails less pointy, the trident points less sharp, the stench of sulphur less intense ...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is still little realisation among the general public at the scale of chaos in the public finances in 2010 when the coalition took over. To be brutally frank, it would have made far more sense for all benefits to have been frozen in 2010 and for the NHS to have had funding cut in line with other items of government expenditure: that didn't happen and it wasn't just because the LibDems stopped the "wicked" tories.
Running a deficit in public spending in the wake of the banking collapse is not the worst crime imaginable. Depending on which school of economic theory you subscribe to, it's actually better for the economy not to swing from boom to bust and back again (and where have we heard that before...) because the busts destroy far more wealth than the booms create. Not paying down that debt during the periods of growth is by far the more serious charge to level here.
I concur with the Honourable Member for Y Sowth regarding in-work benefits. They might sound like a good idea - in practice they're disastrous. A worker is worth their wages, and it is self-evident that in this 'recovery' (scare-quotes deliberate, given the BoE's forecast today), most of the jobs created have saved the government absolutely zero from the welfare budget, possibly even costing the Exchequer extra as benefit claimants move from JSA to tax credits. On top of which, the revenue in terms of income tax and NI from these jobs is minimal.
Reforms are entirely necessary. Given that each state secondary school pupil receives (on average) £4500 pa, and each Eton pupil can receive a state subsidy of £8700pa by way of tax relief on 'charitable giving', I know where I'd start.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is still little realisation among the general public at the scale of chaos in the public finances in 2010 when the coalition took over.
Allow me to express my skepticism about this narrative. I can't remember the last time I heard a government coming to power that didn't declare that the books were in a mess when they arrived, and then later on they declare they've fixed the mess.
It's a constant cycle. It's having a particularly spectacular manifestation at the moment here in Australia, where the current government delivered a deeply unpopular 1st budget, couldn't get a lot of the cuts through Parliament, and then in the lead-up to this week's far more sedate 2nd budget declared the nightmare deficit problem 'fixed' despite the fact that so many of the measures that would allegedly fix the alleged problem never happened.
What governments of all persuasions seem incapable of acknowledging is that these days the state of things has less to do with their local decisions than it has to do with the rise and fall of the global economy. Pretty well everywhere had bad books around 2008-10 because of the global financial crisis, an event driven by the shoddy state of the American mortgage market.
The only difference a particular government made was influencing exactly how bad 'bad' was. This didn't make much of a dent in Opposition rhetoric, though. Again, to talk about Australia, around the globe it was generally thought impressive that we never officially went into recession, but the then Opposition still managed to spend years painting our budget situation as disastrous, with frequent references to Greece.
[ 13. May 2015, 15:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Another reform that could be made is the abolition of higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions. £7bn saved at a stroke.
I'm entirely open to a root-and-branch rethink of the benefits system. Just as long as we look at all of it, not just the fraction that goes to poor people.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Albertus
I think you may find that one of the first areas that will be looked at is the sheer unwieldyness of the whole system.
That's one of the things Universal Credit was supposed to be about, wasn't it- and to be fair to IDS, apart from a few congenital grouches like me who object to permanent wage subisidies, pretty much everybody supported that aim, until it ground to a halt in the murky sludge that is government IT systems.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is still little realisation among the general public at the scale of chaos in the public finances in 2010 when the coalition took over. To be brutally frank, it would have made far more sense for all benefits to have been frozen in 2010 and for the NHS to have had funding cut in line with other items of government expenditure: that didn't happen and it wasn't just because the LibDems stopped the "wicked" tories.
Running a deficit in public spending in the wake of the banking collapse is not the worst crime imaginable. Depending on which school of economic theory you subscribe to, it's actually better for the economy not to swing from boom to bust and back again (and where have we heard that before...) because the busts destroy far more wealth than the booms create. Not paying down that debt during the periods of growth is by far the more serious charge to level here.
I concur with the Honourable Member for Y Sowth regarding in-work benefits. They might sound like a good idea - in practice they're disastrous. A worker is worth their wages, and it is self-evident that in this 'recovery' (scare-quotes deliberate, given the BoE's forecast today), most of the jobs created have saved the government absolutely zero from the welfare budget, possibly even costing the Exchequer extra as benefit claimants move from JSA to tax credits. On top of which, the revenue in terms of income tax and NI from these jobs is minimal.
Reforms are entirely necessary. Given that each state secondary school pupil receives (on average) £4500 pa, and each Eton pupil can receive a state subsidy of £8700pa by way of tax relief on 'charitable giving', I know where I'd start.
The labour government did clear the WW2 debt to America that had been on the books since the 1940s though. (I don't know how much it ultimately cost.)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A worker is worth their wages
The implicit assumption in the in-work benefits schemes (Working Tax Credit, UC, ...) is that the worker is in fact not worth his wage - if an employer had to choose between employing him at a "living wage" and not employing him, the employer would choose to not employ him.
One can argue about the extent to which that is, or isn't, true.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is still little realisation among the general public at the scale of chaos in the public finances in 2010 when the coalition took over.
Apparently the ratings agencies also had little realisation, since they all gave us AAA at the time. Although Mr Osborne did his best to change that ...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A worker is worth their wages
The implicit assumption in the in-work benefits schemes (Working Tax Credit, UC, ...) is that the worker is in fact not worth his wage - if an employer had to choose between employing him at a "living wage" and not employing him, the employer would choose to not employ him.
One can argue about the extent to which that is, or isn't, true.
The fact that people managed to get jobs before WTC was introduced gives me reason to believe that in-work benefits aren't necessary to the equation. There are other, better, ways of 'making work pay' than subsidising it at vast tax payers expense.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is still little realisation among the general public at the scale of chaos in the public finances in 2010 when the coalition took over.
As well as the ratings agency, it's fairly clear the markets didn't believe this either (you can look at gilt rates on either side of the coalition government being formed). Neither do/did the majority of economists.
The deficit was large because the recession post 2008 was deep. OBR figures after the event show that the economy was actually recovering by the time of coalition, and that austerity mainly pushed the economy back into recession - whilst not doing all that much to cut the deficit as tax receipts fell.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The fact that people managed to get jobs before WTC was introduced gives me reason to believe that in-work benefits aren't necessary to the equation. There are other, better, ways of 'making work pay' than subsidising it at vast tax payers expense.
The problem - insofar as there is one - is that we are now in a situation where there are businesses whose entire model is based around the fact that they can externalise a large percentage of the cost of their work force.
Either to locals who claim WTC, or to immigrants who don't, but who live in even more precarious and crowded accommodation. Without this, most of the coffeeshops/low end food chains in places like London would not have a business model.
The same people who complain whenever there is talk of putting up the minimum wage would also be affected if the implicit subsidy via forms of income support were cut - though there would be a delay between the cut and it's effects which would probably mask what was occurring.
Because of this, unwinding this scenario is likely to take a lot of time.
[ 13. May 2015, 20:25: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem - insofar as there is one - is that we are now in a situation where there are businesses whose entire model is based around the fact that they can externalise a large percentage of the cost of their work force.
I agree. But let's call it what it is - working tax credit is more a subsidy for employers, than it is a benefit for employees, like housing benefit is often for the benefit of rentiers rather than renters.
[ 13. May 2015, 20:41: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem - insofar as there is one - is that we are now in a situation where there are businesses whose entire model is based around the fact that they can externalise a large percentage of the cost of their work force.
I agree. But let's call it what it is - working tax credit is more a subsidy for employers, than it is a benefit for employees, like housing benefit is often for the benefit of rentiers rather than renters.
WTC could be renamed as Employment Support Grant, and paid to the company, with the understanding that it was a temporary arrangement to help establish the business, and was contingent on all staff being paid at least a living wage, with a defined period of work each week, and the CEO not taking more than a reasonable amount of salary - this being checked by HMRC. Starting a new company at the end of the supported period would be prevented by Companies House refusing to register such a company. Sacking staff just before they had the required period of employment to enable protection from sacking, paid sick leave and so on would also be prevented.
Oooh Missus, too much regulation. Anti-business.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A worker is worth their wages
The implicit assumption in the in-work benefits schemes (Working Tax Credit, UC, ...) is that the worker is in fact not worth his wage - if an employer had to choose between employing him at a "living wage" and not employing him, the employer would choose to not employ him.
One can argue about the extent to which that is, or isn't, true.
An employer usually needs the people he employs. If, say, you were running a small restaurant you wouldn't be able to do that easily on your own - running the kitchen, waiting tables etc requires additional staff. The employer has a choice over what to pay, very little choice about how many staff to employ. The reason that he can't pay a living wage is that his costs would be higher, and they would need to be passed onto the customers. Which, if he's competing against other similar businesses locally who choose not to pay a living wage will be a disadvantage. If the law requires everyone to pay a living wage that disadvantage will disappear and everyone will be on a level playing field.
WTC can easily be eliminated by simply raising the minimum wage to something much closer to a living wage, probably coupled with an increase in the tax threshold and some minimum hours commitment for workers on lower wages (the cabinets chums on zero-hour contracts who get £1000+ per hour when they do work, those business lunches and deals brokered on the golf course, can keep those if they want).
A radical shake up of the welfare system, rather than just tinkering around with WTC or UC, might be very effective. Howabout, a single payment to everyone over the age of 18? Set it at something slightly above the state pension and it will replace that as well. Permit employers to reduce salaries by the same amount, subject to not going below the minimum wage, and most people will have the same income and won't notice the difference. The bureaucracy of managing multiple tax credit and benefits schemes will be slashed (it would replace things like state pension, income support, WTC - and won't require things like claimants signing on every week), the bill for the scheme will be very predictable and therefore easy for the Chancellor to budget for. There would still be a requirement for disability related benefits and the like on top of that. And, I would like to see support for long term unemployed (bursaries for additional education etc). Take away tax credits for working parents designed to assist with child care, and provide access to state funded pre-school child care for any who want to use it.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The employer has a choice over what to pay, very little choice about how many staff to employ.
This isn't true in places where labour competes with capital (do I employ a dozen people on minimum wage, or do I buy a machine and pay one person to operate it).
It's not true where the cost-benefit balance shifts. Any customer-facing business facing a significant wage increase might well choose to only open at the more popular hours of day. If house-cleaning services doubled in price, more people would clean their own houses, and so on.
To some degree, this kind of thing is scaremongering by minimum wage opponents, but there are elements of truth in it. To some degree, these changes might be desirable (perhaps there is a moral problem with you sipping cocktails while someone scrubs your toilet for a fiver an hour.)
Experience so farm with the minimum wage is that these kinds of things haven't really been an issue, but the minimum wage isn't very big...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Experience so farm with the minimum wage is that these kinds of things haven't really been an issue, but the minimum wage isn't very big...
If the minimum wage is below the acceptable living standard, then somebody (probably the state) is indirectly subsidising employers who employ at the minimum wage by reducing the cost of labour.
If you think that keeping a large pool of people at work in poorly paid jobs is better than no work at all, that might be an acceptable decision by the state. But that is what's happening.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Experience so farm with the minimum wage is that these kinds of things haven't really been an issue, but the minimum wage isn't very big...
If the minimum wage is below the acceptable living standard, then somebody (probably the state) is indirectly subsidising employers who employ at the minimum wage by reducing the cost of labour.
If you think that keeping a large pool of people at work in poorly paid jobs is better than no work at all, that might be an acceptable decision by the state. But that is what's happening.
The basic economic equation is ... more people on very low wages = more wealth accumulation by a few
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I have to say, that for different reasons to L'Organist, I do worry about the kind of knee-jerk 'let's take to the streets' approach which does, it seems to me, rely on simplistic 6th form (or even 4th form) solutions as well as an understandable sense of outrage ...
This is true - but a street protest by nature has to be a simplistic message.
I sign petitions, I write to my MP, I debate with people about things, but all that just mounts up to lazy clicktivism. I can't really volunteer for stuff (like helping in a food bank, for example) because I work shifts, and most places that want volunteers want people who will come at the same time every week, which I can't do. So what do I do? How do I get off my lazy arse and stand up for the stuff I click on? Whether that be anti-austerity or anti-repealing the Human Rights Act, is going on a protest march a good thing? The last one I went on was about Bliar's deciding to take us in to the Iraq (on what later turned out to be false pretenses) so I'm not exactly a regular - but I feel like I should be doing something.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
What exactly do you mean by "anti-austerity"?
Its all so vague and woolly: rather than taking to the streets to shout about "the cuts" (what/which to what, etc) if people - of any political bias and none - truly wish to influence the way that their tax money is spent then the logical thing would be to call for open debate about the priorities of the welfare and health systems and then, if necessary, for a vote to be taken on various costed options.
Why is it, for example, that we persist in calling it a "national" health service when it is blindingly obvious that its nothing of the sort: not only do Wales and Scotland have responsibility for setting their own health priorities, but the treatment options available in, say, West Cornwall, are always going to be different than in central London, partly down to simple geography and the fact that the service isn't national but is run through regions.
If you want an example of how crazy things can get, look no further than people who live on the England/Wales border: at the moment it is possible to live in England and have a Welsh GP - which is fine if you want free prescriptions but can be catastrophic if you have something that the Welsh NHS won't cover. I know, I have a friend who lives in England but can't access the latest treatment for prostate cancer because Wales won't cover it and their GP is over the border. Of course, they could change GP but then they'd be charged for their prescriptions, etc. They've applied for funding and been turned down twice for treatment that would be standard if they moved to a different GP - who would be 15 miles further away from their home and who won't take them anyway because they live too far away from the surgery.
THAT is the sort of thing that people should be debating, that and the fact that in some areas you see people being turned down for treatment for life-threatening disease while others are receiving fertility treatment.
With the best will in the world the state can't pay for everything and acknowledging that is the first step we need to take before having an adult discussion about what should be paid for. THEN you can start protesting if you think things aren't right.
[ 14. May 2015, 12:39: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
It's interesting, slightly surprising and quite gratifying to see the current apparent UKIP meltdown given that they did much better in terms of vote percentage last week than I am comfortable with.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It's interesting, slightly surprising and quite gratifying to see the current apparent UKIP meltdown given that they did much better in terms of vote percentage last week than I am comfortable with.
I am happy to see them fail as well, but I have to ask why did 12.6 percent of voters feel the need to vote for them? What problems do one-eighth of the electorate have that they felt only UKiP could solve them?
That is a pretty fundamental question that all the main parties should be addressing don't you think?
If, as some claim, UKiP is a racist party, then does it mean that 12.6% of the electorate (and by extension the population of the UK) is racist?
If that is the case, why is such a significant portion of the population racist?
[ 14. May 2015, 20:32: Message edited by: deano ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If the minimum wage is below the acceptable living standard, then somebody (probably the state) is indirectly subsidising employers who employ at the minimum wage by reducing the cost of labour.
To the extent that employers would continue to employ the same people at a "living wage", this is true. To the extent that employers would not, it is false.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Though an additional point is the number of people working multiple jobs to make ends meet. How many people put in a full days work on minimum wage, and then because that isn't enough to live on go and spend the evening working a bar or cleaning dishes at a restaurant? If they were paid a living wage at their main job they would not need to work the second job. But, assuming that second job needs doing, someone else would be doing that instead. Which is more people working, which is good.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think UKIP are in melt-down, but they are a one trick pony. They need Farage as he is the only one they've got who can string coherent sentences together.
Once he's gone they'll either fade away or shrink to a BNP style rump or shadow of their current selves.
I think Farage has correctly identified how Labour has largely lost the confidence of many in its traditional working class base.
I also agree that they have highlighted issues that the other parties have danced around and avoided.
What I don't like is the way they play on fears and phobias.
I met a few of the local UKIP supporters during this campaign. Here, they are either disaffected old-fashioned Tories from the golf club or else former traditional Labour supporters. I've yet to meet the one councillor they've succeeded in electing.
I think it's reductionist to bring it all down to racism. The former Tory old boy was very politically incorrect and seemed to be living in a Britain that ceased to exist about 1965.
I wouldn't have him down as a racist - and he was smart enough and honest enough to concede that UKIP attracted more than its fair share of fruit-cakes.
I liked the old boy - he had as many critical things to say about Thatcher as he had to say about Blair and others. He also praised the Labour party on some counts. I enjoyed talking to him and his views were far more nuanced than you might have expected.
This applies, in my experience, to people and parties of all persuasions.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think that Labour are really stuck, quite apart from the issue of Scotland. If they move to the left (as I'd like them to) they won't be able to gain enough votes to be elected. If they sit in the middle they not only become fairly undistinctive but also lose some traditional voters to UKIP.
Their best bet is for the Tories and SNP to foul up hugely, and for UKIP to disappear. But that is out of Labour's hands.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
What Labour need is a visionary. Someone who can find the position where they can be clearly seen as a distinctive party with policies for the working people of early 21st century Britain. And, they need that visionary to inspire their own members and the uncommitted electorate.
It seems obvious to me that Tory-lite is not the position they need to stand in. Tory-lite is as pointless as Bud-lite, you might as well have the real thing. And, if any Tory is insulted that I have just compared their party to imported piss-water masquerading as beer, well tough.
They also don't want to go back to the old Labour socialist values - they were what was appropriate 50 years ago, but the nation has changed in 50 years.
I don't know where that position would be. But, it's not my job to find it for them. And, I don't know what visionaries they have that can inspire the party to follow them to the new battle grounds.
I think John Smith had a vision, and would have been a superb Labour PM. Though that was a vision for labour at the end of the 20th century, and may not be the right vision for today. Is there anyone to fill his shoes?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Blue Labour. But where's the leader? Could Jon Cruddas be persuaded to have a go? Articulate, clever, down to earth and looks like a proper human being (unlike pretty much any of those who've said they're standing so far, and especially that dead-eyed shape-shifting lizard Chukka Umunna, who gives me the willies).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Possibly, Labour need to have a nervous breakdown, always appropriate after a serious defeat. They are still paralyzed by the poison of Blairism, or Tory-lite. It's very difficult to see where they go now, but that is the point of a nervous breakdown, if you come out the other side!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I agree entirely with Alan.
Strangely enough the LibDems came over as further Left than Labour in the run-up to the last election, and gained a lot of support. Of course that evaporated when they ganged up with Team Tory.
Perhaps a new SDP could arise out of the ashes of both Labour and the LibDems?
[ 15. May 2015, 09:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Possibly, Labour need to have a nervous breakdown, always appropriate after a serious defeat. They are still paralyzed by the poison of Blairism, or Tory-lite. It's very difficult to see where they go now, but that is the point of a nervous breakdown, if you come out the other side!
I think that 'big' leaders can cast a long shadow which can be very unhealthy for their parties. I'm not sure that the Conservatives, even now, have quite emerged from the shadow of Thatch- perhaps they have, but only quite recently. The same may be happening with Labour and Blair. Controversial as these leaders may have been even within their parties, they developed formulas which delivered electoral success; and when they're gone, a lot of people keep looking back rather than moving on.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The trouble is, the last time Labour had a visionary and oratorically able leader, the electorate didn't buy it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QPhMVbleU0
The 'Welsh Windbag' was popular in Wales but didn't quite cut it this side of Offa's Dyke.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Possibly, Labour need to have a nervous breakdown, always appropriate after a serious defeat. They are still paralyzed by the poison of Blairism, or Tory-lite. It's very difficult to see where they go now, but that is the point of a nervous breakdown, if you come out the other side!
I think that 'big' leaders can cast a long shadow which can be very unhealthy for their parties. I'm not sure that the Conservatives, even now, have quite emerged from the shadow of Thatch- perhaps they have, but only quite recently. The same may be happening with Labour and Blair. Controversial as these leaders may have been even within their parties, they developed formulas which delivered electoral success; and when they're gone, a lot of people keep looking back rather than moving on.
I think that's right. After 1997, the Tories were all over the place, ditto Labour after Blair. I would say you often need to lose two elections, and have your nervous breakdown. But usually, eventually, there is a recoil effect, as the incumbents appear tarnished. But Labour are paralyzed by neo-liberalism. Blair was clever enough not to appear as right-wing as he really was.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Starmer looks like the man of the future, but too soon now? Also it's unclear if he is enough of a street fighter, also is he a ******* Blairite?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
I'd vote for Tristram Hunt
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Chuka Umunna has pulled out, citing the effect on relations - he had thought he would be able to handle the flak himself.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
"I'm human and my life is more important to me than politics"
I did have a tiny thought that the press only need to continue mauling all the best potential candidates and we will just end up with the same old same old again. No other country in the world does this to their potential leaders - which more or less says it all and lays a lot of blame at the door of the tabloids for how UK politics has deteriorated.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Although you can argue that any serious candidate requires a mauling to see if he can hack it. It's no good if you're a powder puff, as PMQs will reduce you to jelly. I thought that US presidential hopefuls also get a right going over, surely Hillary is going to be subject to massive attack?
Put it this way, I want a leader who can be forensic in argument, but who can also put the boot in, and when he gets the same, he can bounce back. Or she.
[ 15. May 2015, 17:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
Interesting that Tony Blair is described as 'poisonous', or worse. Without him, when did Labour last have a convincing win in England? 1966? It looks like that soul-searching is going to have to be pretty deep (if indeed you believe that the Labour party should be a party of government).
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Hasn't the US had a go at monstering Obama?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting that Tony Blair is described as 'poisonous', or worse.
Even if you agreed with his economic policy, his status as an alleged war criminal (Where the fuck is the Chilcot Report?) makes his brand entirely toxic.
I'm not alone in thinking that, either.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and destroying the social fabric of a country, goes a bit beyond the balance of payments surplus.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting that Tony Blair is described as 'poisonous', or worse.
Even if you agreed with his economic policy, his status as an alleged war criminal (Where the fuck is the Chilcot Report?) makes his brand entirely toxic.
Not toxic enough to win an election post-invasion, though. But don't get me wrong, I don't like the guy. I spent time trying to get rid of him but it turned out that his colleagues were much better at it.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
"I'm human and my life is more important to me than politics"
I did have a tiny thought that the press only need to continue mauling all the best potential candidates and we will just end up with the same old same old again. No other country in the world does this to their potential leaders - which more or less says it all and lays a lot of blame at the door of the tabloids for how UK politics has deteriorated.
I've no idea why Umunna pulled out (or why he entered in the first place, really) but it's odd that he didn't have some idea of the likely media pressure.
While it's fashionable to talk about how politics has deteriorated and the press is to blame and all that, I think it's probably fair to say that Britain has some of the cleanest politics in the developed world. The French must've looked at our parliamentary expenses scandal and thought us rank amateurs.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where the fuck is the Chilcot Report?
Wasn't it being held back so as not to influence the election? Along with some reports of poverty figures and their impact.
Which always seemed very strange. It seemed like someone decided "Let's put the question of who should lead the country for the next five years to the people. But, we won't let them have access to reports and data that might inform their decision".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
"I'm human and my life is more important to me than politics"
This is a good reason to be hired. A sense of balance and perspective.
I actually think that's one of the biggest problems in politics. There are too many 'professional politicians' to whom the whole thing is an elaborate game. About politics rather than policy. They started in university and they found it fun.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Radio 4's Today programme are discussing the Labour landslide by visiting a pub in Rutherglen.
They have just said "and immigration was an issue" and interviewed a UKIP voter. UKIP got 142 votes in Rutherglen, as compared to 10,587 for SNP, 10,411 for Labour and 1807 for the Conservatives. They interviewed 6 people, 3 SNP, 2 Labour and the the Kipper. Why include a Kipper, as evidence that immigration was a factor in the way the vote went? Surely the (unmentioned) fact that UKIP lost their deposit is, in fact, evidence to the contrary?
[ 16. May 2015, 07:53: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, although given it was from a UKIP voter this is unlikely, the phrase "immigration is an issue" is ambiguous. I would agree, immigration is an important issue - the present government policies restricting immigration are an issue, we need more immigrants. That is an issue, but if asked by a pollster "is immigration an issue for you?" wanting a yes/no answer then if I truthfully said 'yes' I would be misrepresented.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
And no discussion of immigration would be complete without at least one person saying, 'why do we never discuss immigration, there is a conspiracy of silence to stifle debate'.
And usually, when given the floor, they say, Father Ted style, 'I'm against it'. And usually they live in a 98% white town, but those 2% are like the pea under the mattress. I know they're there!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And no discussion of immigration would be complete without at least one person saying, 'why do we never discuss immigration, there is a conspiracy of silence to stifle debate'.
And no BBC "Question Time" is complete without someone saying, "What we need is to have a sensible, balanced debate" on the subject.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Places like Clacton amuse me, it looks about 99% white, and there are 3 Asian shop-keepers if you look very carefully, but the white people are BEING OVER-RUN, and I heard somebody speak Italian on the beach!
It's a kind of upside down world, I live in a part of London that is about 47% foreign, and I really don't know how I cope. My street has French people in it, FFS, they speak French. Yours, concerned Resident.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Why any sensible Italian would want to come to Clacton for their holidays is beyond me ...
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
I find it so frustrating that UKIP got away with making immigration the scapegoat for all Britain's problems. It's a minor side issue IMO, and I agree with Alan that we probably need more not less.
I blame Labour for this: I don't expect anything better from the Tories but Labour should have aggressively taken on UKIP years ago. A lot of "immigration" issues are actually employment issues (low pay, insecure contracts, exploitation generally) - this is natural territory for Labour and would have won back their traditional supporters.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
UKIP, the BNP or any of the other parties of that ilk would do better to address the problem of the consistent under-performance of white working class children (particularly boys) in our school system.
And if they did a blind survey of teachers they might find that parental attitude and lack of support has a lot to do with it.
I still remember a friend of my children's father being outraged at school sending home a reading book - "I'm not doing that, its for the school to teach them to read, I've better things to do that waste time like that".
[ 16. May 2015, 09:18: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I find it so frustrating that UKIP got away with making immigration the scapegoat for all Britain's problems. It's a minor side issue IMO, and I agree with Alan that we probably need more not less.
I blame Labour for this: I don't expect anything better from the Tories but Labour should have aggressively taken on UKIP years ago. A lot of "immigration" issues are actually employment issues (low pay, insecure contracts, exploitation generally) - this is natural territory for Labour and would have won back their traditional supporters.
But Labour are feeble on so many issues like this, for example, the 'Labour broke the economy' myth. Are they frightened of upsetting Murdoch? Maybe unconsciously they think that the Tories know best.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I find it so frustrating that UKIP got away with making immigration the scapegoat for all Britain's problems. It's a minor side issue IMO, and I agree with Alan that we probably need more not less.
I blame Labour for this: I don't expect anything better from the Tories but Labour should have aggressively taken on UKIP years ago. A lot of "immigration" issues are actually employment issues (low pay, insecure contracts, exploitation generally) - this is natural territory for Labour and would have won back their traditional supporters.
But Labour are feeble on so many issues like this, for example, the 'Labour broke the economy' myth. Are they frightened of upsetting Murdoch? Maybe unconsciously they think that the Tories know best.
I think that there was too much complacency about UKIP among the Labour leadership. They thought that UKIP would help the 35% strategy (now proved to be a crock) by taking nore votes off the Tories than Labour. A lot of Labour activists knew that this was very naïve.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well again, being Londoncentric, why was the UKIP vote low here? In my constituency, they got less than the Greens. Obvious answers are greater prosperity in London, pro-EU sentiment strong, less fear of foreigners, because the place is saturated with them, and probably loads of other stuff.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Another odd thing is that the Labour vote went up more than the Tory vote. Is this just a London thing, otherwise, yours, baffled Resident.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
UKIP stood in 41 Scottish constituencies and lost their deposit in all 41.
Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on
:
Labour were recovering from a bad defeat in 2010, so their vote share would have gone up anyway. It went up most in London and places like London: Young, diverse, well-educated populations with a high level of public sector employment. Elsewhere their vote didn't recover enough to beat the Tories who effectively absorbed the Liberal Democrats (certainly in seats and to a large extent in votes.) The wipe-out in Scotland and the collapse of the traditional Labour vote (too many lost to UKIP or staying home) killed them.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
UKIP stood in 41 Scottish constituencies and lost their deposit in all 41.
It suggests that UKIP thrive in conditions of neglect and decay, as in northern towns and seaside towns. When there is a sense of purpose and dynamism, as in London and Scotland, their vote is low.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
UKIP stood in 41 Scottish constituencies and lost their deposit in all 41.
A significant change from last year's European Parliament election in which UKIP won 10.7% of the vote (for Parliamentary elections a candidate must win 5% of the votes cast) in Scotland. UKIP won nearly 28% of the vote across the UK, with Scotland bucking the trend, as ever.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And now Jim Murphy (Scottish Labour) has fallen on his sword ...
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on
:
He did not fall on his sword, more like he was first suspended and then dropped on his sword. He would have never have been as honourable as to do it himself.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
That's also what happened in Scotland. However, as Scotland is generally to left of England, it was Cameron who was seen as "extreme" and the "largest minority" went to the SNP.
I understand there is research which states that people in Scotland identify further to the left, however, when asked specific questions on matters such as benefits, immigration, tax, Europe, law and order and so on, there is no difference or leastways a negligible one.
YouGov have asked questions on those issues and concluded that Scots are to the left. However, YouGov draw from a pool of people who have signed up to receive opinion polls, which probably affects the outcomes.
Here's an example You can check any other constituency by clicking on the map.
The page won't load.
However, there is this and this and this. And I suspect that the results would have been identical had people been asked how much extra tax they would be willing to pay.
quote:
But, again, Ormston urges caution: “We often paint ourselves as much more socially democratic and left-wing than the data shows that we are.”
It seems that talk is cheap, unlike taxes.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...the BNP or any of the other parties of that ilk would do better to
...become civilised human beings instead of hateful bastards.
FIFY.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
Gosh, Charles Kennedy has died.
He seemed a good man and a good politician. He led the Lib Dems to new electoral heights, and he was vocal in his opposition to the Iraq war.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Gosh, Charles Kennedy has died.
He seemed a good man and a good politician. He led the Lib Dems to new electoral heights, and he was vocal in his opposition to the Iraq war.
He was opposed to the coalition too. Let's not forget that.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
It's a tragedy. And coming so soon after his father's death in April, a double blow for his family.
I didn't know him, but his father was a work colleague of my father. The whole family were very highly respected in the community. People were confident to elect him an MP at 23, because they knew that he'd had a good upbringing. Tramps and down-and-outs knew they could show up at his parents door and get a hot drink and something to eat. The young Charles grew up sharing the family dinner table with some of the most marginalised in society.
R.I.P. Charles Kennedy.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
Alistair Campbell has written a lovely and personal tribute to him.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Not All Saints but
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
He was opposed to the coalition too. Let's not forget that.
If he predicted disastrous consequences for the Lib-Dems as a result of the coalition then at least he lived long enough to see it borne out.
Not that he'd have taken any pleasure from it.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0